The commentators' betrayal

Here I was, watching television and rubbing my eyes in amazement and disbelief. There they were, my fellow commentators, correspondents, and interviewers - the same people who wholeheartedly supported the war, enthusiastically reported military moves, rejoiced with Olmert, Peretz, and Halutz, put a sympathetic spin on government decisions, and refrained from leveling any criticism at the idiotic decision to embark on a war.

There they were, those same people exactly, sitting in those same studies, gravely leafing through the Winograd report, reading out loud the failures uncovered by the commission, and slamming the government.

Oy, what a terrible failure; the prime minister failed, the defense minister stumbled, the chief of staff collapsed. And what about you, the journalists? Didn't you fail too? Didn't you also buy into the Second Lebanon War bluff? Didn't you allow our failed leaders to foolishly bombard us with military chatter, without asking difficult questions? Didn't you betray your mission?

It should be said clearly and incisively: The media failed too. It preferred to be popular, sell more newspapers, and boost its rating. The public wanted war, it wanted to hit Hizbullah, bombard Lebanon, and show the enemy who's the boss. The government, in turn, heard the growling coming from the street, gave in to public sentiment, and in a ridiculously short meeting decided to embark on a war.

And the media? It couldn't hold back and was unable to say "no." It also wanted to join the party. It also wanted to make use of the verbs "eliminate" and "destroy" in every possible way. Courage is needed in order to speak out against both the government and public, yet our courageous correspondents were not strong enough to do that.

Press failed to ask difficult questions

I dare declare that most of the things that were published now in the Winograd report were known back then already, during that black July of last year. Did we need Winograd to realize we were talking about a delusion from the very beginning? Did we need the distinguished Professor Gavizon in order to understand that the objective declared by Olmert several times, that is, securing the release of our captives in Lebanon, was a blatant lie completely disconnected from reality? Did we need that old chap, Professor Dror, in order to realize that the objective of eliminating Hizbullah through a one-time spectacular military display was hopeless to begin with?

Did we need the two major generals (res.) to realize that everything was done hastily, in an urgent and perfunctory government meeting, without consulting or exercising judgment? Where were you then, my fellow journalists? Why didn't you speak up, why didn't you scream as loud as you could at the time, during that bad summer, when it was still possible to prevent the war and save human lives? Now you're wiser, in retrospect?

Just like a herd running after its shepherd, the press chased our blind leadership. We can count on one hand the journalists who dared object to the war. The overwhelming majority of Israeli journalists preferred to give up on the role of "guard dog." Instead of barking, they preferred to suck up. Instead of criticizing, they preferred to advise. They preferred to forget that patriotism doesn't only mean to push forward; at times it means to yell out: Stop!

The human desire to be warmed up under the light of the consensus overcame any other consideration. The fear to go against the current was paralyzing. When the drums of war were beating, too few dared refuse to dance to their beat.

The press failed because if failed to perform its most basic function: Ask difficult questions. Had it delivered on its mission back then, this entire war may have looked differently. Perhaps we wouldn't even need Winograd. It is also possible that many young people would still be alive today.