Initiatives to end Israel’s Army Radio, Galatz in its Hebrew acronym, are not new. Moreover, the latest decision by Defense Minister Yisrael Katz to close the station down is not a sinister Likud plot. Ehud Barak, who has spearheaded the Balfour/Kaplan Democracy protests these past five years, wanted to do so in 1990. Benny Gantz, as alternate prime minister, pushed the move in 2020 and again in 2021.
In 2015, today’s oppositionist Gadi Eisenkot, speaking as then IDF commander, said that “the army’s position is that the IDF does require a media instrument.” In January 2016, head of the IDF Manpower Directorate Gen. Chagi Topolanski informed the station’s employees that if changes occur, they would remain within the IDF even as he told the civilians working there, “What other country besides North Korea runs a radio station?”
Although Yair Golan, head of the Democrats Party, now opposes the shutdown, he expressed his support for closure on May 17, 2020, posting on X/Twitter that “the money could be used to improve public broadcasting” as the army should stick to security matters.
As David Brinn wrote in this paper a month ago, “Rebranding Army Radio is not an effort to gut Israeli democracy; it’s a justified reform to save an unnecessary expense for a redundant service... [that] should have taken place years ago.” I would suggest that it’s not a rebranding but simply restricting its forays into politics and the platforming of partisan issues within an institution, the state’s armed forces, which should distance itself from those matters.
Why a military radio station should avoid politics
Why should Galatz involve itself in fields of current affairs news and political commentary as well as analysis rather than simple battle chronicles and music? Do our soldiers need ideological commissars in addition to training in weapons and maneuvers?
Starting three decades ago, this writer published, together with Prof. Eli Pollak, in our Media Comment columns over the years in this paper, the advancing to end Galatz.
In the main, our position was less financial, although economic considerations were taken into account. After all, most of the people talking over the Galatz microphones are actually civilians, who merit the unique classification of “IDF employees” as well as very commensurate salaries.
We were, and still are, concerned over the undemocratic elements in Galatz broadcasting and the proven biased media personnel involved. Galatz was not solely a news station also engaged in educating themes of military history and homeland heritage. It was in the thick of political controversies, religion-and-state issues, and cultural struggles. More often than not, it was identified as a stage for a one-sided presentation of opinions and views due to its imbalanced broadcast staff and editors. In addition, it was characterized as a generational parents-to-progeny place of employment.
A few years back, there was a significant brouhaha when a rightist regular commentator was dismissed, leading to accusations that the station had become the personal political fiefdom of the defense minister. Our current justice minister cannot appoint someone to oversee a criminal investigation team but the defense minister gets to appoint a media director in Israel.
Behind all the outcry that the government is being antidemocratic, are the politicians of the Left and the media elite, many of whom are alumni of the station. It is they who particularly grasp the station’s important role of keeping Israel’s airwaves clear of true pluralism. Without pluralism, there’s no chance for democracy. In addition, from where does the state get the moral right to draft young people into jobs that do not have anything to do with the defense of the State of Israel and their role as soldiers?
IN 2021, then-IDF Chief of Staff Lt.-Gen. Aviv Kochavi said he supported the station’s closure, a decision that came “from the need to distinguish the service of IDF soldiers from the actions of a media outlet where soldiers wearing uniform are dealing with political content.” It really is a simple matter.
Moreover, do we really need to have chiefs of staff spending time defending Galatz politicians and ministers who are annoyed by what is being aired by an IDF unit? Does Galatz, with its music playlist, need to become embroiled in wars between Western and Mizrachi music? Between rock and classic styles?
Who or what body should be supervising Galatz’s “non-military programming”? Who should suspend an employee and for what infraction? Who should judge what is news and what is political commentary?
The truth is that Galatz is a luxury that Israel can do without. Essentially, the station is less run by soldiers whereas its major programs are presented by civilian professionals, “celebs” who receive high salaries. They are the ones who create the tone and content of all that is broadcast on the station. It is to them that the new recruits look up to and seek to replicate. The soldiers are just cheap labor. The hosts of the main talk shows and news roundups are civilian “stars.”
Why must the Israeli taxpayer fund Galatz? After all, it competes with Reshet Bet, another state-funded broadcast entity, as well as regional radio outlets. Why not leave the private sector to set up a rival broadcaster? Israel does not need two national public radio stations.
Furthermore, if we are to argue whether the station should be adamantly Zionist, security positive, pluralistic, ethical, and under public oversight, or whether it will continue with a liberal, progressive, elitist agenda, is that the democratic way? Or is democracy being undermined by a military radio station?
The writer is a researcher, analyst, and commentator on political, cultural, and media issues.