The government should have resigned after the war, a Winograd Commission source said Wednesday.
The commission is expected to publish similar sentiments in its interim report on the government’s conduct during the Second Lebanon War by the end of April.
“This isn’t a head-chopping commission,” the source said, “It’s not going to say, ‘You’re guilty, and you’re guilty.’ It’s going to say: You’re not to blame personally, but you bear ministerial responsibility.
“Contrary to what many people think, the commission will take a harsh and specific tone with those responsible for the incidents of the recent war.
"It will also point out that in the name of ministerial responsibility, which should have been claimed, the government should have resigned after the war,” the source continued.
The same source also mentioned what he called the “terrible mistake” made by the Agranat Commission following the Yom Kippur war, “When it chopped of the head of the military echelon – but left the political echelon in position. That won’t happen with the Winograd Commission, which will make profound statements.
Winograd Commission members (Photo: Avi Ochayon)
“They will do the complete opposite of what the public thinks they will do. They will say that in a democratic government – when something like this happens – the government should quit.”
The source said he believed the problem was that there was “no culture of personal responsibility here."
Retired Judge Eliyahu Winograd and the committee members have already made it clear that the interim report would include personal conclusions against the prime minister, the defense minister and the former army chief.
The committee is attempting to delay the publications of the three officials' testimonies, in spite of a High Court order to publish the protocols before the interim report.
Aides to Defense Minister Amir Peretz told Ynet that he had felt the committee members were sympathetic to him, particularly in light of the fact that he did not arrive with a group of lawyers and chose to build his "defense line" on his own.
"Peretz came with his truth, with no artificial statement," an associate said. "He showed them that his decisions were very logical… and proved that he acted in a reasonable manner. Peretz was aware of the diplomatic aspect and the strategy, even if he did not engage in tactics. He felt he has nothing to worry about."