Olmert government: behave like adults and resign

April 4th, 2007

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]

Pelosi’s mission to Syria

April 4th, 2007

US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s mission to Syria may have had the desired domestic political consequences (President Bush is annoyed), but I fail to see a good reason for Israel to talk to Bashar Assad today.

Read the rest of this entry »

Palestinian self-absorption vs. Merkel’s decency

April 3rd, 2007

The Palestinians were unhappy with the behavior of the German PM when she visited Israel:

“We were hoping to show her the wall that Israel built around Bethlehem, but she refused to go there,” [the spokesman] said. “President Abbas was hoping to draw parallels between Israel’s wall and the Berlin Wall. He wanted to remind [German PM Angela] Merkel of the days when she lived in East Berlin.”

“This woman is trying to be more Israeli than the Israelis,” the official said. “During her talks with President Abbas, she totally ignored major issues related to the peace process and chose to focus on the case of Gilad Schalit.

“Germany will not be able to play any role in the peace process because of the chancellor’s bias to Israel. Our people are obviously paying the price for the crimes that were perpetrated against the Jews during World War Two.” — Jerusalem Post

Their self-absorption is stunning. Parallels between the security barrier and the Berlin wall? Major issues related to the ‘peace process’ that are more important than Gilad Shalit, whom Abbas has personally promised to bring home? And the last statement is obscene.

Technorati Tags: ,

Imperialism today runs from East to West

April 3rd, 2007

Barry Rubin, in today’s Jerusalem Post:

Once Britain ruled the waves, today Iran does

…It is the radical Islamists (and remaining radical Arab nationalists) who want to show that they are the ones with the “gunboats,” or rather hijacking airplanes, to keep up with current technology, who can make explosions in Western cities without fear of suffering meaningful retaliation.

In contrast, the West seeks to prove that it is nice. It seeks to apologize, to make reparations, to act as the weaker party. But, you see, the West is running the equivalent of a school for Middle Eastern politicians, intellectuals and revolutionaries. And the lesson it is teaching them is: You are strong and we are weak; you have ideas to believe in, we merely seek maximum comfort and expediency; if you hit us we will yield or look the other way; we are ready to confess our wrongdoing, you only speak of your being absolutely in the right. Like good students, they follow what they are being taught.

Meanwhile, imperialism has switched directions, running now from east to west. And if that is already so without nuclear weapons controlled by Teheran, what do we have to look forward to?

At least up to now, the gap in power that leaves the West the weaker side has not been technological, but rather psychological. It isn’t just a matter of gun-power, either, for the West refuses to use a force as potent as the battleship or aircraft carrier – its economic might. But economic, as well as military, supremacy is being conceded to the extremists and the dictatorships.

And thus, British navy personnel – like American diplomats a quarter-century ago – are seized and their government is to be made to apologize. The woman among the prisoners is forced to wear an Islamist headscarf to show which culture is to prevail… [my emphasis]

The interesting question is whether this is a foregone conclusion, or if it’s possible to reverse it. A starting point would be for westerners to understand that it would not be desirable to replace a system, albeit imperfect, that is based on democratic principles, with one based on religious authoritarianism. It’s surprising that so many do not seem to grasp this.

The teaching of history vs. barbarism

April 3rd, 2007

One of the defining characteristics of civilization is a commitment to understanding and learning from history. One hopes that this process will make it possible for real social progress to occur over time. But those who want to use history as a tool to advance their own interests actually work against civilization and promote the cause of barbarism:

Teachers [in the UK] are dropping controversial subjects such as the Holocaust and the Crusades from history lessons because they do not want to cause offence to children from certain races or religions, a report claims.

The report, produced with funding from the Department for Education, said that where teachers and staff avoided emotive and controversial history, their motives were generally well intentioned.

“Staff may wish to avoid causing offence or appearing insensitive to individuals or groups in their classes. In particular settings, teachers of history are unwilling to challenge highly contentious or charged versions of history in which pupils are steeped at home, in their community or in a place of worship,” it concluded. [my emphasis] — Times Online (UK)

Pay attention to the last paragraph, whose implication is the following: history teachers are simply afraid to talk about these subjects because they face retaliation from Muslims who insist on their right to teach their children, for example, that the Holocaust was invented by the Jews.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,