themarker.com
Israeli Civil Service: No Evidence of "Deep State" Subversion
A recent study refuting "deep state" claims against Israel's senior civil service found that while officials face increased hostility from politicians since 2016, their responses range from passive acceptance to soft resistance, lacking evidence of active subversion.
- How do senior Israeli civil servants respond to populist pressures, and what factors influence their strategies?
- The research highlights three main responses by senior civil servants to populist pressures: passive acceptance of ministerial policies, soft resistance through negotiation and compromise, and rare instances of open dissent. The prevalence of passive acceptance stems from factors such as job insecurity and a desire to avoid conflict, resulting in stagnation within the civil service. Soft resistance involves finding compromises that satisfy the minister without violating legal or ethical standards.
- What are the potential long-term consequences of the observed passive response of Israel's senior civil service to populist pressures?
- The study suggests that, unlike in other countries, Israel's senior civil service reacts with measured responses to populist pressures, avoiding active opposition. This passivity, while preserving stability, may hinder necessary reforms and improvements. The lack of robust resistance, despite the documented distress among civil servants, raises concerns about the long-term health and effectiveness of the public service.
- What evidence supports or refutes claims that Israel's senior civil service constitutes a "deep state" actively undermining elected officials?
- Deep state" accusations against Israel's senior civil service are unfounded, according to recent research. The study, based on interviews with current and former high-ranking officials from 2021-2025, revealed increased hostility and disregard for their professional opinions from politicians, particularly since 2016. This has led to significant distress among civil servants but not to subversive actions against the government.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing emphasizes the relatively passive response of the bureaucracy to populist pressures, potentially downplaying the significance of the pressures themselves and the potential negative consequences of a compliant civil service. The headline and introduction could be more neutral, avoiding terms like "deep state" which immediately frame the issue in a highly charged manner.
Language Bias
While the analysis strives for objectivity, terms like "compliant," "passive," and "relatively weak" when describing the civil service's response could be seen as subtly loaded. More neutral terms like "reactive," "responsive," or "measured" might be preferable. Similarly, describing the dissenting voices as having taken a "milk-and-water" approach could be interpreted as minimizing their actions.
Bias by Omission
The analysis focuses heavily on the responses of senior civil servants to populist pressures, but lacks exploration of potential biases within the populist claims themselves. It doesn't examine the evidence or arguments used by populist leaders to label the civil service a "deep state." This omission limits a complete understanding of the issue.
False Dichotomy
The analysis presents a false dichotomy by framing the issue as either a 'deep state' actively undermining the government or a passive, compliant bureaucracy. It overlooks the possibility of more nuanced responses or the existence of internal factions within the civil service with differing levels of engagement with populist pressures.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article highlights the negative impact of populist pressures on the impartiality and effectiveness of the civil service. Populist leaders' accusations of a "deep state" undermine public trust in institutions and create a hostile environment for civil servants. The erosion of professional expertise in policy-making weakens democratic governance and the rule of law. The described strategies of civil servants (passive acceptance, soft resistance) suggest a weakening of institutional checks and balances, potentially leading to compromised policy decisions and reduced accountability.