Ehud Orwell's speech
If PM has confessed to being 'entirely responsible' he should resign
It was obviously a speech that had been well rehearsed. It didn't comprise any grumbling outbursts so typical of Ehud Olmert, who is known for his inadequacy to control his verbal utterances.
And because of it, its preciseness and planning, Olmert's true character came through; a transparent manipulator of words and facts; a go-getter who erroneously made his way to the top. And although each and every sentence in his address personifies this argument, lack of space only permits discussion of a small portion.
It would have been most appropriate to begin with the prime minister's opening sentence: "The decision to go to war, including the responsibility of its outcome – is entirely mine," but instead we'll leave this sentence to the end.
We'll begin, therefore, with the second sentence: "The Israeli, civilian home front was the enemy's main target, and not incidentally."
Hizbullah had one intention
But incidentally, the contrary is true. Hizbullah, explicitly and with much audacity said right from the start that it had one intention: To abduct Israeli soldiers in order to enter a prisoner exchange deal.
That's what Nasrallah said on the day of the kidnapping, and he reiterated this in his speech of "remorse" which the prime minister enjoys quoting. This time, regretfully, the civilian home front was not the enemy's primary target, and not incidentally.
Let's go to the next sentence: "Hizbullah's target was…to harm the home front, to kill, to terrorize in an attempt to spread fear, panic and to create a public outcry that would paralyze military operations."
George Orwell couldn't have put it better. Because, this was in fact Israel's declared tactic: To strike at the home front, to kill, to terrorize and so on and so forth, or as commonly put in official Israeli jargon: "To put pressure on the Lebanese government."
Additionally, contrary to common belief, the first to shift the fighting inside the other side's civilian home front was Israel. Only after the IDF bombed Beirut and Lebanese infrastructure, did the rocketing of the Israeli home front begin.
The prime minister said in that same speech that when he decided to go to war "we knew very well that rocket fire would be aimed at civilian populations." And indeed it was. The first Katyusha rockets landed inside Israeli territory only on Thursday (July 13) before dawn, just a few hours after Israel attacked the Lebanese home front.
This fact doesn't clear the Hizbullah of its responsibility for starting the war, however, even in times of frustration and rage we would do well to stick to the facts.
We surprised them
The next sentence is a spectacular sample of Olmertism: "We surprised them. The home front persevered." The prime minister knows all too well that the home front did not persevere. The home front went south, and rightfully so. Those who persevered were the ones who had nowhere to go.
In general, the home front persevered the way any home front perseveres, in whatever country and in whatever war, whether it's here, in Lebanon, Iraq, London, Hamburg, Sarajevo or Tyre. What else can it do? Those who can flee do so, and those who can't, "persevere".
The prime minister also knows all too well that no one made any effort to assess the home front's preparedness for the "perseverance" it was forced into. But now, instead of asking for the home front's forgiveness, he is trying to use excessive doses of flattery.
Let's continue. In order to reinforce his victory argument, the prime minister quoted his enemy: "Nasrallah says simply – had I known this would be the outcome; I would not have given the order to start the war."
Isn't this wonderful? At the same time the prime minister was taking pride in these words, tens of thousands of soldiers and civilians hoped that Olmert would be the one to say simply: "Had I known this would be the outcome of the war, I would not have ordered it to begin." But it seems that Olmert leaves these simple sayings to Nasrallah. He prefers more convoluted pronouncements.
The most amusing part is undoubtedly the part where Mr. Olmert tries to explain why a state commission of inquiry is inappropriate: It will be prolonged, it will paralyze, it will keep attorneys occupied, it's a luxury, it is indeed an "enticing solution" but it's "not what the country needs…"
Not since Louise XIV
Since Louis XIV, who said "L'État, c'est moi" (I am the State), no head of state has demonstrated such absolute monarchy. Namely, what he doesn't need, the state doesn't need either.
And then came the ultimate 'attorney' schmaltz, the pit of pathetic manipulation: "Each one of you, with his hand on his heart, knows deep inside that this will not put the shortcomings right."
Everyone - with or without his hand on his heart - knows all too well that when an attorney resorts to such meager tricks, it is an indication that he is great distress.
One final sentence for the finale – and it cannot be more revealing: "The military should be examined in a way that a democratic civil society examines its military. And the same applies to us, the political echelon."
According to the prime minister, a state commission of inquiry is neither civil nor is it democratic. According to him only blunt toothed examination committees, void of any authority and financed by those being investigated, are appropriate for examining "a democratic civil society."
To sum up, as promised we'll go back to the first sentence: "The responsibility for the war is entirely mine."
If so, there's no need for an investigation. The person responsible has been found. And in keeping with the Jewish tradition of "He who confesses and forsakes (sins) will find mercy," he should be told: You confessed? Very well. Now resign. Only then will you find mercy.
