End leftist hypocrisy

Left must not ignore wrongdoings of leaders even if they advance diplomatic process

Eran Hermoni|Published: 01.17.08 , 00:03

It is customary to say that one cannot ride two horses at the same time, yet it appears that some people try to do just that, while displaying a fair measure of hypocrisy.

On many occasions we heard self-righteous voices coming from the left end of the political spectrum and charging that various rightist leaders are unfit to hold power because their leadership was fundamentally corrupt or inherently immoral. Others were slammed for various leadership failures, such as improperly embarking on war.

Yet as it turns out, talk of withdrawals, negotiations, or mere well-photographed peace conferences enable various elements on the Left to turn a blind eye or forget about all those fundamental failures, which only a moment ago supposedly deprived other leaders of the moral right to remain in their posts.

The implementation of the disengagement process led the Left to clear the Sharon government of the corruption affairs associated with it. Now, Ehud Olmert’s words regarding a diplomatic move are enough for them to turn the Winograd commission of inquiry into a virtual committee.

These leftist elements are in fact conveying a message whereby they are willing to tolerate any prime minister and any kind of conduct, as long as the leader in question expresses his willingness to advance on the diplomatic front. As if the end justifies the means.

Labor must quit government

In my view, this approach is inappropriate. The diplomatic issue is central and important, yet under its shadow we cannot renounce all social objectives or turn a blind eye to a corrupt or blatantly immoral government.

The proper moral approach would be one that refuses to clear the prime minister of the war failures and calls for Olmert’s resignation following the submission of the Winograd Report, without engaging in narrow political calculations. Therefore, the Labor Party must not remain a part of the Olmert-led government after the report is published.

The coalition can continue functioning under Olmert’s leadership, but without the Labor Party, or continue to be managed by Kadima and the Labor party, but without Olmert.

However, when it comes to those who for the sake of a diplomatic process are willing to bury all other issues deep underground and even take part in unworthy governments, thus legitimizing them, we must explain to them that they will have no right in the future to roll their eyes self-righteously and demand the resignation of prime ministers over fundamental failures (such as the failed management of a war.) This would be the case even with regards to prime ministers who do not advance the diplomatic process.

I can only imagine what Peace Now would have been saying about the Winograd Report and about Olmert had the prime minister refrained from attending the Annapolis conference.