Planning the previous war
The political world is now focused on the critical question of who has greater experience to deal with the military challenges ahead: Shimon Peres or Ehud Barak.
By Uzi BenzimanLike generals spending all their energy preparing for the next war, when in reality they are planning for the previous one, the politicians in Israel are knee-deep in the trauma of the Second Lebanon War, stuck in a morass that is dictating their priorities and their moves, and does not contribute to understanding the root of the country's distress and the direction where potentially safer ground lies.
The political world is now focused on the critical question of who has greater experience to deal with the military challenges ahead: Shimon Peres or Ehud Barak. The test of leadership set by the Winograd Committee is based on defense and diplomatic experience, and the candidates competing for the leadership of the country are evaluated on this basis. The political maneuvers in Labor and Kadima are being carried out on the assumption that in the coming months, the country is once more expected to face serious security crises: in the Gaza Strip, in Lebanon and possibly against Syria.
Barak, Ami Ayalon, and also Ehud Olmert, Peres, Tzipi Livni and Shaul Mofaz, are waving the diplomatic and/or defense experience they've accumulated, in an effort to gain or to retain the crown over their parties. Their political future hinges on their ability to convince their constituents (or the institutions of their parties) that they are more qualified than their rivals to deal with the security challenges ahead.
The field of competition has been selected by the competitors themselves: E ach of them sings his own praises about his military and/or diplomatic experience, while emphasizing his ability to correct the failures that emerged last summer and prepare the country for the war hurtling toward us.
This is an assumption that could be justifiably challenged: Instead of focusing on preparations for a war that allegedly is unavoidable, the candidates for the leadership of the country should be asked to present the citizenry with a peace plan. More important to Barak's political ambitions are his views on Israeli-Palestinian relations rather than his military career or the recommendations he whispered to Peres at the start of the Lebanon war. The public is entitled to know what lessons Barak learned from his failure as prime minister to reach a permanent solution with Yasser Arafat. Is he returning as a candidate in the political arena with fresh insights on the chances for dialogue between the two peoples? Does he still aspire to reach a permanent solution or does he prefer the interim arrangement? Has the rise of Hamas to power changed his outlook? Does he think that the conflict can be solved, or has he come to terms with the approach that says we should make do with managing the conflict and avoid a thorough solution?
Olmert also has a few questions to answer. He was elected on the basis of the convergence plan that declared his intention to narrow the Jewish presence in the West Bank. This idea faded with Hamas' rise to power, the resumption of rocket attacks from the Gaza Strip and the impact of the Second Lebanon War. In the name of what agenda is Olmert holding on to power? What is he offering the Israeli public, apart from a spectacle of political acrobatics whose sole purpose is his personal political survival?
Benjamin Netanyahu is also not exempt from answering these same questions. What is the Likud's recipe for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? On the face of it, Netanyahu's doctrine is clear: The occupation is not the root of the country's problems, but rather, it is the attitude of the Arab world in general, and of Islamic fundamentalism led by Iran in particular. But Netanyahu has already been prime minister, and has experienced first-hand the impact of the conflict on the fabric of Israeli life. He cannot ignore the corrosive effect of this chronic problem if he expects the public to regard him as a national leader and not only a party head with an ideological fixation. Does Likud have a reasonable solution to the contradiction between the wish to retain the Zionist and democratic character of the state and the continued hold over the territories, with all the demographic implications inherent in this?
It is no coincidence that the candidates for the leadership of the country are concentrating on the next war and ignoring their duty to propose solutions to the country's fundamental problem: the occupation.
Why Facebook Connect?
Comment on Haaretz.com articles with your Facebook login, and share your thoughts on your own wall.
- Latest
- Most Viewed
- Most Rated
- Open all
Barak and Netanyahu are former failed PMs. Peres is too old, Livni, in my opinion, is alightweight. Why not Landau?
The Saudi plan is a merely a peaceful way to destroy the Jewish nation of Israel. Muslims control more than 15 nations. Jews control one. The Saudi plan denies Israel's right to be a Jewish nation. How is that a solution?
The fundamental problem is not the next war, nor is it the occupation. The fundamental problem is that the Arab and Muslim world still refuses to accept that a Jewish nation exists in their part of the world. The occupation is the result of the war in 1967, a war that the Arab nations started. The attitude and desires of the Arab nations has not changed in the last 40 years, the last 60 years, the last 100 years. It is their desire to detroy the Jewish nation of Israel. When Israel is accepted, a negotiated peace can be implemented and the occupation will end. Until that time, the leaders of Israel must be ready to protect Israel's citizens.
H: "The solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict will come when the Arab world accepts Israel`s right to exist as a sovereign state" That offer is already on the table from the Palestinians, and has been since 1988. It is currently on the table AGAIN, and is called the Saudi Plan. Israel is the one refusing to sit down, not "the Arabs". H: "in the homeland of its ancestors" Ahhh, the inevitable weasel-words. Meaningless unless Hastaroth defines it, but it can be taken to mean ALL of the ex-mandate, and Lebanon up to the Litani, and a bid ol' chunk of Syria, and probably some other bits and pieces too. But you'll never come out and *say* that, will you Hastaroth... H: "Were Gaza and the WB occupied by Egypt and Jordan prior to the 1967 war,YES or NO? " Why, YES. Unquestionably true. And this makes a difference, well, how, exactly?
40 years of occupation is enough! No country of the world could go on w/ a status quo like this for all eternity. This MUST end up some day in so serious trouble that NOTHING militarily can help! Volt-face insight is needed that, while being prepared, security comes from peace, not war.
There was terror long before the so-called Occupation. There was terror long before 1967. Muslims this past week burnt cars all around France, is that because of occupation? Uzi you are better off cleaning the streets than writing in newspapers
The solution for the Israel-Palestinian conflict will come when the Arab world accepts Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state in the homeland of its ancestors. As for the "occupation",I have a question for all the Arabs participating in this forum: Were Gaza and the WB occupied by Egypt and Jordan prior to the 1967 war,YES or NO? Answer to this,please,and then we can start talking.
Barak tried to surrender everything to Arafat. Its called Palestinian Rejectionism! Uzi, why dont you read the charters of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah to see the problem. Once again, its called Palestinian Rejectionism!