The mass media (Kol Israel, channels 1,2 and 10, 'Haaretz' newspaper) have stopped being a means of passing information and commentary; as far as the future and the character of the State of Israel is concerned, they have invested interests, by promoting an agenda of withdrawing to the 1967 borders, of separating the Jewish people from their sources and of making a pact with the Arabs. A journalist is permitted to have bizarre opinions, but he is not allowed to distort reality, to lie and to call his opponent racist and devoid of national responsibility. All the prohibited things mentioned above are committed daily by the mass media and by 'Haaretz' more than anyone else. It is impossible to cite the multiple examples, so I will focus on the agenda 'Haaretz' has been promoting for the last month. This newspaper introduces itself as being addressed to the Very Intelligent People, but instead, it addresses the Very Important People!
Here is an example of the elevation of Ehud Olmert and the slandering of his opponents (anyone who is against him is his enemy). In the lexicon of 'Haaretz' there are no such words as opponent, someone who disagrees, a person of a different opinion, only people of small faith, devoid of vision, hasty, people who want to usurp the throne of the Prime Minister.
On Friday, January 13, 2008, Yoel Markus writes in his article: 'And now, Survival' That after the fiasco of the (Second) War of Lebanon, they demanded the head of Olmert because he wanted to continue evacuating territories; and the rest of the public wanted to punish him for taking the blame of the army upon himself. The Prime Minister believed the army and had no idea it was untrained and its equipment was old and rusty. But since the war, Olmert had been functioning wisely: he has committed himself before Bush to evacuate the outposts and to discuss the core of the conflict. Therefore, the Vinograd Committee Final Report will not do him justice, but bring the extreme right to power.'
In another article on January 27, entitled 'Who Will Remove Barak?', Yossi Werter says that the dismissal of Olmert is unrealistic and illegal. It is impossible to coronate someone instead of him unless he agrees.
Next to Werter's article, there is Ehud Asheri's article, 'The Ethical Code of Uzi Dayan'. The claim of this article is that the struggle of Uzi Dayan to make Olmert take personal responsibility for his actions in the war is childish! Since Dayan has to put the value of responsibility into a wider context and not just punishing a Prime Minister for his failures during the war, i.e. Olmert's dismissal will interrupt the Peace Process and serve only the Israeli Right Wing and the Hamas. Therefore, Dayan will have to wean himself of populism and join the forces in favor of the acceleration of the Peace Process, and thus make proof of 'National Responsibility'!
On January 13, Asheri writes another article, 'Between Olmert and Kattash' where he claims that Olmert did not reject personal responsibility for the results of the war, but disagreed, justifiably, with two basic assumptions of his opponents; the first: the definition of the results of the war as failure and the translation of taking responsibility as resignation; the second: Olmert's mistakes derive from his over trust of the military command! (Chief of Staff Halutz caused Olmert's failure) In Asheri's opinion, Olmert has internalized the lesson of the war by making proof of a balanced policy towards the Hamas and by saving the Zionist Enterprise via the division of the Land.
On January 21, 2008, Yoel Markus wrote in his article, 'An Enemy Called Self-Pity' ; he attacks all tear-jerkers (such as bereaved parents, the newspaper 'Maariv' and politicians who use the blood) on account of the casualties of the War of Lebanon. This is not the time to bring forward the elections in order to bring down the government, since we are in the midst of a political process. Bereaved parents do not have privileged rights in politics.
On October 25, 2008, Markus writes in his article 'Five Comments on the Situation' that the Letter of the Company Commanders was the closest thing to a military push, and that an accelerated proceeding for elections is preferable in order to pass on the failure to the verdict of the voters rather than to a committee of inquiry. In his article 'Deep Frying', Yossi Werter writes that, as opposed to any attorney, Olmert didn't have the right to cross-examine witnesses. Asheri writes in his article, 'The Balls of Mofaz', that Mofaz is cynical and shameless, since he was member of the Cabinet that ran the war; where was he in the years when he functioned as Chief of Staff and Security Minister responsible for the anemic army and the nomination of Halutz as Chief of Staff?
About the things cited above, one can say that everything is true but for the facts!! How can journalists, on the one hand, say quarters of truths and halves of lies, and on the other hand, be ashamed to demand that the public adopt their opinions on grounds of 'national responsibility'? It is not enough that if you need the 'thief', you must take him off the hanging pole, but also claim that he is not a 'thief', but a born-leader, a skilled politician with wide horizons, that happened to fall into the pit due to over trust in other people who had schemed to bring about his downfall, due to unfortunate circumstances. I say Olmert should be removed, since he did not deserve to be elected in the first place, being neither a leader, nor a politician, but a person devoid of any charisma! His behavior, particularly since he became PM, is the proof that he is unsuitable for the job and shows the discrepancy between his shallow character and his high position!
I will account for my position only on basis of the articles published in 'Haaretz':
I completed my military service only as captain, and I was only a battery commander in the artillery corps, but in spite of my low rank, I can say that Olmert did not take the blame of the IDF upon himself and he did not follow Halutz blindly, on the contrary: Olmert did not intend to open a war, but a limited military campaign, and when things went wrong, he panicked and didn't know what to do! That's why the infantry sat waiting on the border for two entire weeks! Let's assume that Dan Halutz was against a ground invasion and preferred air and artillery attrition, couldn't Olmert discuss the matter with other members of Staff? Didn't Olmert demand an alternative plan? If it was suggested, what was it? If not, why not?!
I have no doubt that the army had a drawer plan for a large ground invasion in Lebanon, but why wasn't it implemented? Didn't Olmert know about it? Of course he knew!
The PM didn't know that the army had old and rusty equipment! If he didn't know, it is a disaster, but if he knew and went into battle after all, why did he take the risk? Isn't there a limit to stupidity? It is true that there is no need to have a Baccalaureate in order to become a journalist, but is a little common sense too much to ask for? A PM goes to war without having a clue about the contents of the arsenal of his-own army or of the enemy's. Isn't it his responsibility to know such things?! Let's assume that Olmert was misled and made to believe that the army was equipped 'tip-top'. Didn't the truth surface during the very first days? Then why didn't he stop and the shameful situation wouldn't have been discovered? And why did the last battle take place when our tanks were blown up like sitting ducks?!
Contrary to Olmert's claim that the ground invasion was meant to improve positions before the decision of the Security Council, Mr Bolton, the American Ambassador to the UN, said that the final draft of the decision had already been written by all the parties concerned, including Saudi Arabia (and it must have been even the Hizballa) on Friday, before the ground campaign started. In conclusion, the ground campaign was aimed at improving the image of Olmert and Peretz, and that's why David Grossman wouldn't shake hands with Olmert, because the latter caused the death of his son for no reason at all!
The company commanders are not allowed to write, but the generals, members of the Peace and Security Council are permitted to, because they are for the 'Process'!
Olmert had fought against an official committee of inquiry, and now he is suddenly a poor client who cannot cross-examine witnesses?
How dare the journalists claim that the right wing people demand Olmert's resignation for political reasons because of evacuation of outposts? Didn't they fight in the war? Haven't they lost their sons?
David Grossman cries out against Olmert only because of the ground invasion, because his son died in vain. His opinions are similar to Olmert's.
Is Mofaz the person who appointed Halutz? Since when does a former Chief of Staff appoint the next one? A Chief of Staff is usually against his successor. Sharon appointed him against Mofaz's position.
What is the connection between the terribly wrong functioning of Olmert during the war and the 'Peace Process'? It is obvious that Olmert made a big mistake with the war. It is also correct to assume that whoever made a mistake of such magnitude in the war, might make a similar size of mistake with peace. So he must go!
Once the 'Haaretz Band' plays tunes for the Vinograd Committee and once for elections, but it always sticks its neck out to protect Olmert's political head from being decapitated and the excuse is always the same, the 'Peace Process'.
So where is the truth in 'Haaretz'? They know where it is to be found, but refuse to reveal it to the people in order to protect Olmert's head and to prevent the right wing from acceding to power.
This is the naked truth about politics written on a peace of paper that belongs to the mass media!
Yours truly,
Dov Even-Or
No comments:
Post a Comment