There is no doubt that the heated public debate about Iran between former Mossad and Israel Security Agency chiefs and the elected government contains another dimension one that is potentially destructive to democracy. Former Mossad head Meir Dagan, an intelligent and sensitive man and an accomplished warrior, is currently leading a movement to change the system of government in Israel. That issue is important and necessary, but it is not what I intend to address here. Considering his intentions, it is surprising that Dagan ignores one of the fundamental components of democratic rule the British concept of the "rules of the game." Within this framework, heads of security and intelligence agencies wield great power, which is limited among other things by the knowledge that their power doesn't actually belong to them. They are not independent players who can act as they see fit, but rather are granted permission and authority to act by the publicly elected government. This holds true both during their term and after, because the knowledge these officials amass translates into power. In his defense, Dagan uses a technical claim, namely that he is a "private citizen." Yet his attempts to thwart government policy assuming there is such a thing are not really those of a "private citizen" but of "outgoing Mossad chief," a title that comes with great responsibility, and not just in terms of security and intelligence. It requires a modicum of self-restraint while serving in the post, as well as after. Israel is an established democracy and the possibility of a military coup is inconceivable. But if, for example, the outgoing head of intelligence in an African country relentlessly blamed the sitting government for abandoning the future of the state, it could signal an oncoming revolution. This example helps explain why Dagan's approach is dangerous and not because he is wrong; it is possible he is right. However, after he has exercised his democratic right to express his opinion Dagan persists, and insists on forcing the elected government to accept his "personal" views. Dagan's proponents might say that his remarks constitute legitimate criticism, that they are a necessary democratic act and the opposite of sedition. Yet there is a fine line between the two. It's no coincidence that the rules of the game are rules, and not laws. They are flexible, and that flexibility gives senior officials who recently left their posts the right, and perhaps even obligates them, to express their opinions. Within the same rules of the game, the media and public opinion have great sway and if Dagan believes the government is leading Israel toward disaster and ignoring his pleas, it is his prerogative to mobilize public opinion to influence the leadership. However, being interviewed once, twice or three times is one thing. It is quite another to wage an intensive campaign in Israel and abroad and using your reputation as former Mossad head to prevent implementation of the elected government's policy. In fact, it could be described using the exact word that former Israel Security Agency chief Yuval Diskin used to describe Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barak: messianic. That word implies, among other things, that a person believes he holds the key to redemption and is willing to do anything to realize it. The fact that Dagan's position is perceived as "humane" because he opposes war is what obstructs our ability to see how undemocratic his actions are. Let's stop and consider another situation for a moment. Imagine Dagan urging the Israeli government, in a campaign here and abroad, to reoccupy Gaza because terrorist organizations (to the best of his knowledge) are gaining strength during the cease-fire, and he feels the government won't address the problem because it fears a public backlash. The masses cheer on the truth-telling hero and urge the government to act accordingly. After all, he knows what he's talking about: He's Mr. Security. It's safe to assume that in such a case most newspapers would have condemned Dagan for the dangerous use of his security credentials. I believe that Dagan, having learned a lesson from the 1973 Yom Kippur War, seeks to save us from what he considers to be a tragedy. Beyond internalizing the lesson that Israel cannot be locked into a fixed "security conception," Dagan must also remember that the country's security does not rest on military action alone. Understanding the democratic dimension is equally important.
