FresnoZionism.org — ציונות פרסנו

Recently PM Olmert refused to consider any peace agreement that granted a “right of return” to Israel — either actual or symbolic — for Palestinian refugees or their descendants (see “Olmert has it exactly right“). Alan Dershowitz suggests a less drastic position:

Having concluded that Olmert was absolutely right as a matter of principle, he may have been wrong as a matter of tactics. The Palestinian narrative, whether factually correct or incorrect, is a reality in the minds of most Palestinians. Earlier Israeli Prime Ministers recognized that, and were prepared to compromise principle for a pragmatic peace. They indicated a willingness to accept some symbolic right of return coupled with compensation.

Dershowitz is wrong. Granting a ‘symbolic’ right of return (what is a “symbolic right”, anyway?) means taking responsibility for the refugee situation. It means, therefore, admitting to having caused it by deliberate ethnic cleansing or at least by being responsible for the war in which the refugees were created. It means giving up the position that Israel was founded in justice.

Why should the ‘right’ be only symbolic if the Arab story is accepted by everyone, including Israel? How long would it stay symbolic then? What argument could Israel give for it to remain only symbolic? What argument could Israel give for (Jewish) aliyah?

The fact is that Israel’s right to exist is grounded in the rightness of its historical narrative. Take that away — as the pro-Arab propagandists are trying to do — and there is no reason for there to be such a state, which, after all, nobody else in the region wants.

Technorati Tags: Israel, Palestinians, Dershowitz, right of return

The Winograd Commission, established after the recent war in Lebanon, is expected to publish an interim report before the end of April. A commission source told YNet news:

“Contrary to what many people think, the commission will take a harsh and specific tone with those responsible for the incidents of the recent war.

“It will also point out that in the name of ministerial responsibility, which should have been claimed, the government should have resigned after the war,” the source continued.

“They will do the complete opposite of what the public thinks they will do. They will say that in a democratic government – when something like this happens – the government should quit.” — YNet

The act of taking responsibility — and actually bearing the consequences — when something goes wrong is rare among public officials in Israel and the US. Dan Halutz did the right thing, and one hopes that the PM and Defense Minister will do the same.

Olmert and Peretz have both made excuses, blamed others, and in Olmert’s case even claimed that the war turned out exactly as planned. They need to understand that along with the perquisites of high office, comes the responsibility for what happens on their watch, even if they can explain how they are personally blameless.

They need to understand that making such explanations not only doesn’t free them from the consequences of their responsibility, but cheapens them and lowers them in the public’s esteem.

They need to behave like adults and resign.

[tags] Israel,Winograd Commission,Olmert,Peretz [tags]