Yair Golan’s service to Israel deserves respect. A former IDF deputy chief of staff and major-general, he has contributed greatly to the country’s security. He is also obviously entitled to hold left-wing views, oppose the government, and seek to replace it through democratic elections.
Precisely because Golan leads a party called the Democrats and aspires to govern, his own democratic instincts deserve scrutiny. Democracy is tested not only by the causes a politician supports, but by how he treats opponents, public institutions, and media outlets he regards as hostile.
Over the past two years, Golan has repeatedly used language that sits uneasily with the values he claims to defend.
In December 2024, during the controversy over proposals to dismiss Attorney-General Gali Baharav-Miara, Golan declared that any coalition member voting for her removal would become “a full partner in a crime, in the dismantling of democracy and in treason against the State of Israel.”
One may believe that dismissing the attorney general would be reckless or profoundly damaging. But “treason” is not ordinary political criticism. It places a legal and constitutional dispute outside the realm of legitimate disagreement. Once political rivals become traitors, alternation in power begins to resemble a struggle between patriots and enemies.
That same month, after an investigative report raised questions about Police Commissioner Daniel Levy’s relationship with figures close to the Netanyahu family, Golan warned him that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir “will not always be here to protect you,” adding that after the government changed, “if necessary, we will settle accounts with you as well.”
Golan was entitled to demand an investigation. Yet “settle accounts” is the language of political retribution, not institutional accountability. Investigators, prosecutors, and courts should examine suspected misconduct. Opposition leaders should demand due process, not imply that a change of government will bring personal reckoning.
The same problem appeared in May 2025, when Golan said that “a sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby, and does not set itself the goal of expelling a population.” He later clarified that his attack was directed at the government and praised IDF soldiers as heroes. That clarification matters, but does not erase the original formulation.
An Israeli leader, particularly a former general, knows such words will be heard beyond the domestic arena. They can be used to portray Israel and its soldiers as deliberately murderous.
Severe criticism of government policy is legitimate; language echoing the most inflammatory accusations against Israel is neither responsible nor necessary.
‘Cleaning up’ the government is not an inclusive, democratic sentiment
In September 2025, before David Zini had begun serving as head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), Golan announced that a future government led by his camp would remove him and “clean up the civil service.” He added that appointments made by the current government would be reviewed and replaced if they had departed from the democratic path.
A new government may reconsider certain senior appointments and investigate improper politicization. But announcing that the civil service must be “cleaned up” risks replacing one alleged loyalty test with another. The permanent state apparatus belongs neither to Netanyahu nor to Golan.
At the end of 2025, Golan promised that his camp would close Channel 14, which he described as propaganda rather than legitimate media. He later said it would be transformed into “real media.”
Channel 14 is openly ideological and entirely open to criticism. But governments should not decide which broadcasters qualify as genuine media. If a channel violates regulations or the law, regulators and courts should address specific violations. The democratic answer to partisan media is stronger standards, competition, and pluralism – not closure by political decree.
Golan’s response to the deadly events near Gilad Farm in July 2026 raised a related moral concern. He expressed regret for the loss of “Israeli and Palestinian lives alike” and called for everyone involved in violence to be prosecuted.
Compassion for every innocent life is essential. Yet his wording did not distinguish between the two Israelis who died, Maj. Yuval Ezra and Benayahu Mellet, and the Palestinian whom the IDF identified as an attacker who seized a weapon and opened fire.
Golan then moved rapidly from mourning the dead to blaming the government, illegal outposts, and extremist settlers for creating an explosive reality. Those issues deserve debate, and the entire incident should be investigated. But political context must not erase individual responsibility.
Recognizing everyone’s humanity does not require placing victims and an armed attacker on the same moral plane. A national leader should first express condolences to the Israeli families and condemn the shooting unambiguously, before moving to the political argument.
Israeli democracy cannot be protected through a monopoly on democratic virtue. It requires restraint when describing opponents, respect for due process, tolerance of hostile media, and recognition that public institutions must survive government changes without becoming instruments of revenge.
Golan presents himself as a defender of Israeli democracy. To make that claim convincing, he must show that democracy protects not only the people and institutions he values, but also the opponents, officials, and journalists he distrusts.
A democratic leader is measured by whether he continues to recognize them as legitimate participants in a shared political order.
The writer is an Israeli educator and former director of the TALI Education Fund and the Hebrew University of Mexico.