IDF Personnel Directorate head Maj. Gen. Hagai Topolansky's resignation Wednesday placed the bar of "taking responsibility" very high. The resignation, which follows the theft of a military computer from his home, is not just a show of the importance placed on dealing with potential information security breaches, but a show of actual accountability, one measured in actions, not words, as expected from those holding senior positions. Topolansky could have tried to hang on. The Military Police investigation has concluded that in all likelihood, there was no classified information on the stolen computer, and that any offense lies in his keeping the computer at home, in violation of military protocols. Given that classified information was not compromised, Topolansky could have simply received disciplinary action. But the head of the IDF Personnel Directorate decided otherwise. This decision likely stemmed from three reasons: The first is the importance the IDF places on information security; the second is the fact that IDF Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gadi Eizenkot is known as a stickler when it comes to military protocols; and the third is accountability. The importance the IDF places on information security has increased in recent years, out of fear that sensitive information may fall into hostile hands. In recent years, serious action has been taken against officers, including high-ranking ones, who lost computers containing classified information. Most of them were either dismissed or retired from service. Topolansky knew that any hint of preferential treatment in his case would send a negative message to other IDF officers and public officials alike. Topolansky also knows that Eizenkot expects soldiers and officers of all ranks to adhere to IDF protocols across the board. Eizenkot showed no leniency toward other officers, and it is doubtful he would he would have done so in Topolansky's case, even though Eizenkot and Topolansky are said to be close. The resignation spared Topolansky the potential embarrassment of being dismissed. Most importantly, however, Topolansky's resignation is a show of personal accountability. He was raised to take responsibility for his actions, and that is what he strove to instill in others, he said. This was his way of making a simple statement: Public servants must be held accountable for their actions, for better or for worse. Not surprisingly, the last officer to accept responsibility in this way was also an Israeli Air Force officer, namely Dan Halutz, who was chief of staff during the 2006 Second Lebanon War and resigned in the wake of its failure. There is something in the IAF's education that demands deep introspection and analysis of successes but mainly of mistakes, and that has these officers view themselves, their environment and their place in it differently. Topolansky took a long, hard look at the situation and came to the only conclusion possible. His resignation will have immediate implications for the General Staff. Topolansky's term in office was slated to conclude next year, but the transition had not yet been put in motion, and the move has caught the IDF by surprise. Contrary to its dreary image, the position of head of the IDF Personnel Directorate is a pivotal one, especially during Eizenkot's term, as he plans to carry out several key moves, ranging from gender integration through wage and personnel cuts to curbing the influence rabbis are trying to wield over the military. Topolansky's departure will deprive Eizenkot of a true partner in the journey to reinstate the IDF's rightful status as the "people's army." In this respect, Topolansky's resignation is a tremendous public loss of a commander who chose to lead by example.
