I have belonged to the relatively small fraction of Israeli public opinion that believed in an independent commission of inquiry into the Lebanon war. Such a commission would have had a full authority to delve into any and all matters related to the war and to issue conclusions of a personal nature about the people at the helm. Without restrains and almost impossible to muzzle.
Were Olmert feeling secure and clean of any wrongdoings, he would have gone for such a commission – if only to remove the cloud of blames and suspicions. And what does he do? Here:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert decided Monday to set up two committees of inquiry into the government’s and military’s handling of the Lebanon war, rejecting both the option of a more comprehensive, independent state commission of inquiry and a government commission of inquiry.
Sorry, it does not wash. It is a dirty trick worthy of a small town mayor using a local sheriff to investigate allegations about his thievery, while sharing the spoils of the thievery with the said sheriff. As correctly stated Zeev Segal in Haaretz: The committees of inquiry are a national farce.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has pulled out of his hat committees without any real foundation, lacking in public trust, just like hot balloons. Even were these to do their job properly, they would not win the confidence of the public, no matter what their findings might be.
So it is the time for the rope, tar and feathers, ladies and gentlemen. And, as the following ad that is doing its rounds over Internet, says:
Wanted in a country in the Middle East:
- President
- Prime Minister
- Minister of Defense
- Minister of Justice
- Chief of Staff
- Police commissioner.
Experience not required. Good wages.
Cross-posted on SimplyJews
There isn’t any need for a divisive inquiry. The larger policy incoherence about Tehran in Washington, was reflected in miniature in the aimless Israeli actions in Lebanon. Washington called the play, it was a bust, some now are trying to put a great big smiley face on it, trying to portray it as a victory. But on one side we see finger pointing and recriminations, and on the other, celebrations and euphoria. That’s a rather commonsensical barometer of who won, and who lost.
Washington is to blame for what happened. It wasn’t Olmert, although to be sure, he proved himself an incompetent, as did his Cabinet, as did the IDF for that matter. Yes, they don’t escape blame in all of this. If the General Staff had presented a firm and clear strategic picture to Olmert and the Cabinet, they might never have been dragged into such fruitless military actions. And it was fruitless because the IDF went into battle without destroying Hezbollah. Had the General Staff demanded clarity and a free hand, events would have played out very differently. So don’t go placing the onus of the whole thing on Olmert, though that is tempting to do so. Moreover, another party who should be blamed is the Israeli electorate, who rejected a man like Netanyahu, for a non-entity like Olmert, who had nothing going for him other than big placard photographs of Ariel Sharon behind him. The Israeli people selected an incompetent, and that played itself out in an incoherent military/diplomatic gambit.
Lastly, the Parliamentary division of spoils, the process where every fringe party finds itself a seat in your parliament has got to be scrapped. That too is a fault that should be laid at the ever fractuous Israeli electorate. Is it any wonder that you can’t pursue consistent, but arduous foreign policy goals.
Israeli policy needs to emerge from the micromanagement of the White House and the State Department. It isn’t healthy for Israel, it isn’t healthy for the United States. It hinders you from unleashing against your enemies. And it creates a weird dynamic where Arabs believe that greater pressures upon the United States will result in a greater curtailment of Israeli freedom of action. The Arabs are buying much favour in Washington, they’ve thrown millions around, hundreds of millions in fact, and they’re beginning to see a return for that investment. Rest assured, it isn’t to the benefit of the state of Israel.
Israel should take whatever action necessary to secure her borders, and to remove whatever swords of Damocles are hanging over her head.
First off, you need a real man for Prime Minister. You have several more than equal to the enormous existential challenges to Israel. Choose from amongst them, and stay the hell away from placid non-entities who promise peace, instead of promising to come to grips with your enemies.
There’s been far too much fantasizing about peace in Israel, far too much sentimentalism in your foreign policy. Far too many Israelis have eager ears for political opportunists who promise what they can’t deliver.
You chose to live in a tough neighborhood. Stop the delusion that your neighbors are going to be reconciled to your presence anytime soon. It’s going to get far worse, before it even begins to get better. We’re dealing with 1,300 hundred plus years of jihad, of Dhimnitude, of a Caste system, sanctioned by the Shariaa and backed up by Koranic exegesis. If you were going to get weary of contestation after several decades of strife, it would have been better had you informed the United States of that sad fact way back in 1948.
In a world of ominous and increasingly rabid anti-semitism, you have no other option but to make a go of Israel.
And before your leadership acquires the mental toughness necessary for the job, the Israeli electorate needs to acquire that toughness. And not just for several weeks after a few soldiers are grabbed, or hundreds of missiles are falling all over the place. How much better had the Israeli electorate had the toughness of Moshe Arens, Netanyahu, Eitan? You have men equal to the challenge, but Israel insists on turning to men like Rabin, Peres, Olmert, who pursue mirages.
Why is Olmert still in power? Why hasn’t that government fallen?
And why isn’t Netanyahu forming a government right now?
He’s the guy you clearly need. And he speaks English with an American idiom, and he speaks powerfully and persuasively. Which is all the better, for what Israeli is better suited to make your case to the American people.
How could the Israeli people reject him?
Dan, your post is a commission of inquiry by itself. Most of the conclusions you reach are true, if somewhat exaggerated. Re “You have several more than equal to the enormous existential challenges to Israel.” – here is where I lost you. The names you mention below are hardly of the caliber required, unfortunately… Nothing personal, believe me.
Re Netanyahu – if we had a need for a talking head only, I would be all for him. Unfortunately, this is not the sole qualification for a leader. But this is not the time and the place.
Israel clearly needs a politician who has a clue and is liberal enough for Israeli voters. If an American Jewish politician who fits that description is looking for a job in a few months…