The criticism of the Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert from the Israeli Government’s Commission into the first five days of the war is damning. It lays the blame for the results of the war on Ehud Olmert’s as a result of his position and behaviour.
What is so striking about the findings of the report (read more here) is that it brings us back to the reality, that whatever our analysis of international relations, our models and frameworks for understanding conflict and consensus or our processes and goervernance, in the end politics and sometimes, the very act of war, comes down to personalities and their feelings about themselves and the events around them.
I know that it’s easy for me to say now, but I felt at the time that, had Sharon been in charge, he would have not felt the need to prove anything. But Olmert, with Sharon in a coma in hospital was feeling like a shadow of his predecessor and attempted to act decisively. Had he in fact been as strong a leader as he was trying to look the Israelis would never have gone to war.
The whole episode achieved nothing for Israel, nothing for Lebanon, nothing for the Middle East and just further entrenched an externally funded terrorist organisation like Hezbollah. It is a grim situation indeed.
At the time of writing he is refusing to entertain any idea of resigning. I am glad to see that at least one of his ministers, Eitan Cabel, has done so, because he can no long bring himself to sit in a government led by him. I hope that the Israelis themselves take decisive steps to get rid of him soon, which at least they can, as one of the few democracies in the region.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment