Why is it that we need elections every two years?
While dictatorships (our neighbors for example) hold elections every 4 or 5 years in which the same leader is chosen again and again, democracies hold elections every 4 or 5 years in which either the same party or the opposition party may win.
So where does it put Israel with elections every 2 years?
Is it an ultra-democratic state? I guess not. This is not the issue.
Israel just can't make up its own mind. The desire for peace is distrupted by war, and so is the desire for war. Most of the thinking, of both politicians and voters is very much concentrated on the near future. For politiancs, that's an pbvious one. But voters? aren't they worried about their children and grandchildren? Don't they even care about their own pension?
This is the problem with a young democratic state - too many unsettled issues, and every day a different one comes to mind and tops the national agenda. Kadima was supposed to bring some stability into the system, being a "center" party. Failing to win the next elections will bring about many more years of political, and probably regional, instability.
Sunday, June 15, 2008
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Disappointment?
Many people in Israel are disappointed of the last war in Lebanon. This disappointment turns into criticism of the way things were handled during the war, and many voices are calling for Olmert, Peretz and Halutz to resign.
I honestly believe that Olmert and Peretz should resign. If Israel was run like a firm, and not like a social club, the CEOs would have been forced to resign. Not because of profitability issues, mainly due to marketing failures.
The fact that consumers are disappointed means the government didn't sell the war correctly. Firstly, many Israelis had the wrong expectations of this war. People wanted it to be a swift, blitz like, air strike which would teach Hezbollah a lesson. Secondly, the main achievements of the war were not explicitly explained to the public. It is true that the achievements of the war are not absolute, after all there was no clear cut victory, but Israel won on points.
Not everything should be solved by military means. The Israeli society is still miles away from this understanding. Many years and many tears to come.
I honestly believe that Olmert and Peretz should resign. If Israel was run like a firm, and not like a social club, the CEOs would have been forced to resign. Not because of profitability issues, mainly due to marketing failures.
The fact that consumers are disappointed means the government didn't sell the war correctly. Firstly, many Israelis had the wrong expectations of this war. People wanted it to be a swift, blitz like, air strike which would teach Hezbollah a lesson. Secondly, the main achievements of the war were not explicitly explained to the public. It is true that the achievements of the war are not absolute, after all there was no clear cut victory, but Israel won on points.
Not everything should be solved by military means. The Israeli society is still miles away from this understanding. Many years and many tears to come.
Thursday, August 17, 2006
Leaving Lebanon - not for the first time
IDF troops are pulling out of Lebanon.
Defeated? Not really. Winners? Obviously not.
The "end" of the war is present yet it is as vague as ever.
The end of the war was supposed to be marked by a victory, or at least by a truly traumatic event that would "force" the two sides (who are the two sides? let's leave that for a later discussion) to sign a cease fire agreement.
But neither this nor that has happened. The war was indeed traumatic, but not only can no one proclaim true victory, no one seems to be defeated.
Is this the model of the (near) future wars - Medium intensity, lots of civilian casualties on both sides and no clear cut results?
Maybe Israel has learnt the lesson, both out of its own experience (and mistakes) and out of the grave mistakes of others (like the Americans in Iraq), and now believes that 'no victory' in battle is better than a lose-lose long run guerilla fighting.
The answer for this question lies within another uncertainty: Can a UN resolution be imposed by an international force?
Only time will tell. In the following days the future of the region will be set, at least for a few years. Decisive international force will prove the UN is trustworthy. Weak and reluctant one will result in a harsher and longer war, that, once again as in the past, wishes to impose victory by military means alone, in the future.
Defeated? Not really. Winners? Obviously not.
The "end" of the war is present yet it is as vague as ever.
The end of the war was supposed to be marked by a victory, or at least by a truly traumatic event that would "force" the two sides (who are the two sides? let's leave that for a later discussion) to sign a cease fire agreement.
But neither this nor that has happened. The war was indeed traumatic, but not only can no one proclaim true victory, no one seems to be defeated.
Is this the model of the (near) future wars - Medium intensity, lots of civilian casualties on both sides and no clear cut results?
Maybe Israel has learnt the lesson, both out of its own experience (and mistakes) and out of the grave mistakes of others (like the Americans in Iraq), and now believes that 'no victory' in battle is better than a lose-lose long run guerilla fighting.
The answer for this question lies within another uncertainty: Can a UN resolution be imposed by an international force?
Only time will tell. In the following days the future of the region will be set, at least for a few years. Decisive international force will prove the UN is trustworthy. Weak and reluctant one will result in a harsher and longer war, that, once again as in the past, wishes to impose victory by military means alone, in the future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
