During a press conference after his retirement, German Giltman, a colonel in the Israeli army, emphasized his refusal to participate again in an institution whose structure he said was far from democratic principles and openly criticized the pressure he said political leaders were exerting on the military. This statement came in the context of the recent decision by Defense Minister Israel Katz, who vetoed Giltman’s candidacy for a relevant position in the army’s land forces amid the conflict between the military leadership and the Israeli Civilian Command. According to Europa Press, Katz’s position has opened a new chapter of tensions between the minister himself and Eyal Zamir, the chief of the army’s general staff, over promotion procedures and the profile of senior officials.
According to Europa Press, Katz’s refusal to accept the full list of promotions proposed by Zamir affects around 40 senior officials and imposes new restrictions on future appointments. The rejection focused in particular on the case of Giltman, a former military member associated with the “Brothers in Arms” collective, a group that has gained prominence in the public scene thanks to its political activism and opposition to certain policies of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. The media explained that Katz directly told Zamir that he would not allow the admission of people whose positions, in his words, “preach non-violence” and undermine cohesion and discipline within the force.
Giltman, whose public career was marked by his involvement in events and protests sponsored by the Brothers in Arms, retired from military service in 2022. The group he belongs to includes reservists and veterans who have expressed dissatisfaction with the current leadership of Israel’s executive branch and its handling of social issues such as proposals to call new elections and expand conscription to traditionally exempt sectors such as the ultra-Orthodox community. Europa Press explained that one of the main reasons for the confrontation between Katz and Zamir was the reintegration of figures like Giltman into the army’s decision-making environment.
In his public appearance after leaving the army, Giltman said, according to Europa Press, “I am not prepared to serve in a place that is not a democracy,” adding that the moral dilemma posed by the governing environment has put pressure on the institution’s core values. This view was met with strong response from the Defense Ministry, where Katz stated that “those who preach and promote non-compliance will not serve in the Israel Defense Forces and will not be promoted to any position.”
Katz’s direct intervention in the additional selection and promotion processes, according to Europa Press, implies that from this episode onwards all promotions will be subject to his personal approval, establishing institutional loyalty and compliance with executive branch policies as essential criteria. The decision increases control over candidates for key positions and tightens the requirement to follow orders from civilian authorities.
According to Europa Press, the background to the conflict revolves around the debate over the limits of dissidence and the autonomy corresponding to military commands within an army whose central function is linked to Israel’s national identity. The differences over the extent of political expression in the military are multiplying the pressure on Zamir’s team and reviving discussions about the institution’s independence in the face of political contingencies.
Katz himself openly stated in the statement published by Europa Press that no promotion or appointment would be made without examination and that strict obedience to the government was an essential requirement. The current leadership of the Israel Defense Forces therefore faces a key dilemma of how to deal with loyalty to the state and space for dissent in times of polarization.
As a result of this episode, national public opinion is closely monitoring the development of relations between the military leadership and civilian officials, particularly with regard to the autonomy of the military leadership and the integrity of democratic decision-making mechanisms. Europa Press stressed that the emergence of groups such as Brothers in Arms and the incorporation or promotion of their members continue to generate controversy that affects the perception of independence and cohesion within the armed structure.
Katz’s decision, Europa Press stressed, is a message to all military personnel and to society that pushes the boundaries between the right to dissent and the demand for discipline and respect for orders. Future promotion elections will be conditioned on the ability of candidates to demonstrate adherence to the principles and policies established by the civil power.
The resulting scenario of these internal tensions reflects both the current challenges to discipline and leadership within the Israel Defense Forces and emerging questions regarding the balance between civilian control and military independence. According to Europa Press, Katz’s monitoring of the process is becoming a tool for reconfiguring institutional monitoring and control mechanisms as debates intensify over the army’s role in national political life.
About The Author
