Where were Israel's leaders when Iran was threatening us?

When the annals of Israel are written, one question will be asked: What were the country's leaders busy with while Iran was openly boasting of having accelerated its uranium enrichment program and its leaders were threatening to annihilate Israel? When researchers study the documents of this period, they will simply not believe their eyes as they read of how an entire nation, including all its institutions and elected representatives, preoccupied itself with trifles.

For example: Should Knesset members be allowed free upgrades from tourist to business class on flights abroad? That proposal was put forth by Knesset Speaker Reuven Rivlin, of all people - the man who has been paving his way to the state presidency from the moment he cried like a baby at being elected to the Knesset to the moment he joyously reached the speaker's chair.

Or take the proposal by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to allow Israelis living abroad to vote in Knesset elections. Israel has come a long way from the time Yitzhak Rabin called emigrants "dropouts" and "wimps."

Nowadays, we are more tolerant of Israelis who have settled overseas - mainly because some of them come to visit their relatives in Israel, and even the majority that does not come takes an interest in what is happening here. They subscribe to Israeli newspapers and watch Israeli television. As a rule, most of them lean politically right. More than once, during visits abroad, I have heard expatriates preach that "you must teach the Arabs a lesson," and other similar statements.

Those who broached the idea, and its supporters, say the objective is to preserve the expatriates' involvement with and ties to Israel. On the other hand, the idea that about 10 MKs would be elected by emigrants, meaning they would determine the government - under which they would not live - is intolerable. So, too, is the cynicism entailed in the suggestion that someone who does not serve in the army and does not pay taxes could, through a vote, decide the country's fate.

This week's media report that Defense Minister Ehud Barak is considering extending the term of Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi for another year - his fifth - was puzzling. Given that Ashkenazi is only at the tail end of his third year, the timing was bizarre.

For those who have forgotten, the chief of staff's term used to be three years, and the battle over a fourth year was always accompanied by intrigues (which once even included a false rumor that the incumbent of the day was a homosexual). As a result, on the advice of the last attorney general, Menachem Mazuz, it was decided that the chief of staff's term would be fixed in advance at four years. Thus the leak to the media about a fifth year appears either premature or simply foolish.

Yet even before the Channel 1 television reporter could wipe the sweat from his brow, a sharp response had arrived from the defense minister's office, which went as follows: "The defense establishment and the army have great admiration for Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi, but the question of extending his tenure by an additional year, in view of the threats, has not been discussed in any forum. The report as broadcast comes from the school of IDF Spokesman Avi Benayahu, and it generates contempt for the chief of staff and the institution of the chief of staff."

Even in the days when civil war erupted over who would be chief of staff, the defense minister's office never issued such a severe reprimand to an IDF brigadier general. In effect, this was an irritated defense minister criticizing the chief of staff: Such censure is not issued without approval at the highest level.

This country has experienced tense relations between chiefs of staff and defense ministers before; for example, between Shaul Mofaz and Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, between Netanyahu and Amnon Lipkin-Shahak - though Netanyahu was not defense minister in those days but prime minister. Yitzhak Mordechai was defense minister. Then there was Pinhas Sapir, who asked Golda Meir to leave Ariel Sharon in the army for another year to prevent him from entering politics. At least we don't have that kind of maneuvering nowadays.

The Barak-Ashkenazi relationship is in good working order despite the built-in tensions between the two positions. But Ashkenazi does not rub shoulders with politicians, push himself into the limelight or steal interviews from his superiors. In that, he is the opposite of Barak - who, throughout his army career, whether as head of Military Intelligence, deputy chief of staff or chief of staff, would mingle with the rich and famous, and the politicians. Everyone knew he was paving his way to a political career.

Ashkenazi is a better chief of staff than his two predecessors. He rehabilitated the IDF, he has conducted an exemplary war and secret operations, and he has gone on record as saying he plans to go into business when he completes his term. What does Barak have to fear, given that after his four-year term, Ashkenazi will have to sit through a three-year cooling-off period before he can enter politics?

A retired general who has seen everything and been through everything described the exchange between the two as a disgrace and an embarrassment. But let us assume that Ashkenazi indeed wants another year - so what? By the time Ashkenazi was legally able to serve as defense minister, Barak would already be 71. Either he would once again be prime minister or he would again be on a business trip abroad. And based on historic precedent, the President's Residence will still be open to him when he is over 80.

Yes, I know I'm writing about trifles. But what else can one write about in a country that devotes so much time to trifles?