Wednesday, February 06, 2008
2/06/2008 11:51:00 AM | 
Posted by
JoeSettler
When the Left and Right agree, something is wrong.
The complete and utter lack of political repercussions and reverberations after the release of the Winograd report should have been a warning sign.
Even now, even if the citizens are no longer 100% sure that the Prime Minister and his government didn’t act out of personal political expediencies, it is clear enough to the country that he and they certainly acted out of incompetence (or actually froze and didn’t act at all due to “indecision”, to use the terminology of the report).
Yet the wording of the report was too weak to make a difference.
For the most part the report didn’t name names (even if we all knew who it meant).
In short, the report and the committee turned into a toothless tiger.
But now we have the Tsunami.
A senior member of the committee made remarks that seem to indicate a political preference in his part of the decision-making and content of the report.
(From the JP) In an interview with Ma’ariv Professor Dror made the following statements:
"If we think that the prime minister could further the peace process then that is a very worthy consideration. A peace process, if it is successful, will save so many lives that it is a weighty consideration."
Or the more damning:
"We must think about the consequences. What do you prefer, a government with Olmert and Barak, or new elections that will put Netanyahu in power?"
Astonishment and concern about the validity of the investigation and the conclusions of the report have been raised all across the political spectrum from Left to Right.
Silvan Shalom, Ruby Rivlin, Limor Livnat, Zevulun Orlev, Yossi Beilin, and Shelly Yachimovich to name a few of politicians across the political spectrum all agree that something seriously wrong has happened in the committee and the report, and are all demanding an investigation of the committee, of what influenced its decisions, and perhaps even an entirely new enquiry.
When such generally opposing voices agree on something, then further consideration is worthy consideration.
The complete and utter lack of political repercussions and reverberations after the release of the Winograd report should have been a warning sign.
Even now, even if the citizens are no longer 100% sure that the Prime Minister and his government didn’t act out of personal political expediencies, it is clear enough to the country that he and they certainly acted out of incompetence (or actually froze and didn’t act at all due to “indecision”, to use the terminology of the report).
Yet the wording of the report was too weak to make a difference.
For the most part the report didn’t name names (even if we all knew who it meant).
In short, the report and the committee turned into a toothless tiger.
But now we have the Tsunami.
A senior member of the committee made remarks that seem to indicate a political preference in his part of the decision-making and content of the report.
(From the JP) In an interview with Ma’ariv Professor Dror made the following statements:
"If we think that the prime minister could further the peace process then that is a very worthy consideration. A peace process, if it is successful, will save so many lives that it is a weighty consideration."
Or the more damning:
"We must think about the consequences. What do you prefer, a government with Olmert and Barak, or new elections that will put Netanyahu in power?"
Astonishment and concern about the validity of the investigation and the conclusions of the report have been raised all across the political spectrum from Left to Right.
Silvan Shalom, Ruby Rivlin, Limor Livnat, Zevulun Orlev, Yossi Beilin, and Shelly Yachimovich to name a few of politicians across the political spectrum all agree that something seriously wrong has happened in the committee and the report, and are all demanding an investigation of the committee, of what influenced its decisions, and perhaps even an entirely new enquiry.
When such generally opposing voices agree on something, then further consideration is worthy consideration.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Here is my take on this. Usually, infighting is set aside so as to pull together to fight a common enemy. We’ve seen this in wars; however, I do not think it applies so much here. It seems that where this is a potential political vacuum that might be created, it creates a rush from those who want to fill that vacumm…all in the greed for obtaining more power. I mean, you don’t think that the politicians are rushing to get more power so as to serve the people better do you?
Normally that is what happens, but I agree with you, this is not about a common enemy as much as a common revelation that something is completely wrong here.
Except for Silvan Shalon (and maybe Livnat), most of these politicians have reached the pinnacles of their political careers, and they know it (Shalom and Livnat don't know it yet), so they aren't saying it for personal reasons.
As for more increased party power? Probably, but as an indirect result.
I hear you, however, whereas Leftists have a DNA defect on reasoning, others like Shalom and Livnat, are merely giving a body reaction to something that is wrong but this is not to give worry, soon they will be caught in their tracts and find some “creative” way to side step facing reality like the rest of the Leftists so that they can continue enjoying their high salaries, Volvos, etc.
Post a Comment