Wait until Wednesday

It would have been appropriate for anyone interested in issuing an "alternative Winograd report" to wait until the real Winograd report is released on Wednesday. But by last week, three alternative reports had already been issued - one by bereaved parents, another by Meretz faction whip Zahava Gal-On, and the third by the protest movements. What all the reports have in common is the recommendation that the Winograd Committee will not be writing: Dismiss the prime minister. It's difficult not to get the impression that since the committee announced in advance that it would not be calling for any heads to roll, those behind the alternative reports have rejected it from the outset. But an approach that treats inquiry committees as a legal guillotine rather than a way of ascertaining the truth is unacceptable.

One can argue that the prime minister paved the way for the alternative reports when he announced, in the unfortunate statement that would have been best not made, that he would not resign under any circumstances. Thus was an equilibrium created in which both sides entrenched themselves in positions that had no connection to the content of the report to be released.

With all due respect to the army's commanders in the field, we cannot accept the letter in which 50 company commanders demand that the prime minister be ousted. There is something lacking in the commanders' understanding of democracy if they failed to discern the heady scent of a putsch arising from their letter. Commanders who serve in the reserves cannot unite around their military ranks to call for the dismissal of the person who is supposed to send them into battle.

The bereaved parents' letter apparently led to the statement, attributed to a source on the Winograd Committee, that running the country cannot be left to bereaved parents. Surely, the bereaved parents have no interest in undermining the legitimacy of the Winograd Committee. After all, the committee's first report serves as the basis for their demand to oust the prime minister.

Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stated over and over that he will not make any decision before he reads the report. Even if this position stems from motives tied to coalition survival, it is a stance that all sides would do well to adopt. Therefore, even Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni's meeting with the reserve soldiers yesterday was out of place. Livni could have met with them months ago, and there's no reason she shouldn't do so as of Thursday. Yesterday, though, was the time to tell the reservists that they too should wait.

It is worth keeping an open mind until reading the report. The testimony of the cabinet ministers that Gal-On put together about the way the decision to embark on a ground offensive was made, for example, raises the question of whether ministers perhaps voted for a military operation because it was uncomfortable for them to oppose it. If that is the case, would it not be appropriate for the entire government to resign and not just Ehud Olmert?

Moreover, it could be that the Winograd Committee members will have something important to say on matters no less important than the fate of the prime minister. For instance, was there a need for an earlier ground offensive? Was the home front neglected so that soldiers would not be hurt? Was the war conducted with both hands and a leg tied behind the back? And what is needed to make sure all these things don't take place in the next war? It is worth looking intensively for the answers to these and other questions in the Winograd report, rather than holding steadfastly to predetermined positions.