The lesser of two evils
Olmert has a personal interest in preventing the establishment of a state commission of inquiry. However, when he warns that such a commission would paralyze military and civilian life for a prolonged period of time, he's telling the truth
The establishment of a commission of inquiry, as announced by Olmert Monday, is the lesser of two evils. It has many shortcomings, however they are dwarfed vis-à-vis the potential damage posed by the other alternative – a state commission of inquiry.
Those who emerged from this war with the sole purpose of ousting Olmert, Peretz and Halutz, didn't get the committee they asked for. Legally speaking, this is a third rate committee: The top league is a state commission of inquiry. The second league is an examination committee headed by a former judge; the committee appointed by Olmert was named much more modestly - a committee of inquiry.
It is not supposed investigate, nor is it supposed to examine or oust, but rather it falls within the realm of "inquiries."
Olmert's aids searched for a retired judge who would agree to head the committee. All those asked refused, possibly because they feared the outrage of the Supreme Court or some other reason. Even Amnon Rubinstein turned down the offer. For lack of any other option, the cabinet offered the heading of the committee to 77-year-old Nahum Admoni, who served as the Mossad chief 20 years ago.
The last official mission assigned to Admoni was to compile the list of persons eligible for Shin Bet body guards. Indeed an important assignment, but nowhere near the scale of investigating the government's decisions during the war.
Conflicting interests
Only one of the committee's four members is truly proficient in the military matters of this war: Yedidya Garol-Yaari, a former navy commander and currently the CEO at the Rafael Armament Development Authority. But Garol-Yaari is a civil servant, and I alrady heard a serious objection to this appointment by an associate of one of the persons to be investigated.
And then there's Professor Ruth Gabizon, another member of the committee, who happens to be a candidate for the Supreme Court. Her appointment is subject to the support of ministers she is charged with investigating, which raises a question of conflicting interests.
Olmert has appointed three commitees: Admoni will investigate the government, Lipkin-Shahak, or someone else appointed by Peretz will investigate the military, and the state comptroller will investigate the home font.
The state comptroller is likely to investigate whatever he wishes, make headlines and calm down. However, the other two committees are in for a head on collision. In addition, they are likely to clash with the teams appointed by the chief of staff headed by Dan Shomron.
Will the Admoni committee waive the right to hear the chief of staff and the major generals? Absolutely not. Will the Lipkin-Shahak committee waiver the right to hear the defense minister? No way.
And what will we do if one committee condemns the chief of staff over a certain decision, while the other committee praises him for the same one? How come "A Star is Born" suffices with one committee, and only our government needs two?
A better option
Nonetheless, the committees appointed by Olmert are still preferable to a state commission of inquiry. The jurists are to blame for killing state commissions of inquiry. They turned them into court houses, with publicity hungry and greedy attorneys who drag out the sessions for months and sometimes years, through cumbersome processes that ultimately leave the committees' work void of any meaning.
True, Olmert does have a personal interest in preventing the establishment of a state commission of inquiry. However, when he warns that such a commission of inquiry would paralyze military and civilian life for a prolonged period of time, he's telling the truth.
No shortcuts
If the conclusions from this war show that the prime minister and the defense minister should be ousted, then the proper address is the Knesset, or the ballot box, or the party institutions on which they hinge. There are no short cuts.
The criticism that should be leveled at Olmert is not for his evasion of a state commission of inquiry but rather for his evasion of cabinet decisions that should have been taken following the conclusions of the war.
Olmert erred when he appointed cabinet ministers just because of momentary political convenience. Peretz was the wrong man for the defense portfolio, and Hirchson wasn't the right man for the finance portfolio either.
The cabinet doesn't lack ministers, but it doesn't have a welfare minister. It's no wonder than that the government failed miserably when it came to handling the home front during the war.
If Olmert is unable to refresh his cabinet, how can he correct the shortcomings exposed during the war. It's commendable that he flies to the north of the country every day, but his leadership problems begin in Jerusalem.
