Clickety clack, clickety clack. The Messiah has come!

Hamas, according to Barel, is in the cat-bird seat. Hamas' logic theorizes any pain inflicted on Palestinians benefits them because they will be seen as the Palestinian's heroes. In other words, create a circumstance which causes you to be attacked then I will defend you and I will become your hero. Twisted to say the least but then, Western logic is not Arab logic. (See 1 below.)

It would appear the first battle is between Barak ,Ashkenazai and Olmert.

Olmert is in Berlin visiting Merkel, seeking to gain support for a possible attack on Gaza which, to date, he has ruled out. When in trouble, travel! (See 2 below.)

Kyle-Anne Shiver focuses on the messianic zeal Obama has created and compares it to other "saviours."

I read Shiver's article only a few minutes after speaking with my grandson who went to hear Obama, who appeared on on his campus today. I asked him what he thought about Obama and what he had heard. He said Obama used the word change a lot, said he would build more schools to raise education levels, give more tax relief to the lower class and take it from the rich and young people liked him a lot. I asked him what he thought about this and he said he liked Obama better than Hillary.

I mention this because it proves my point: young people are impressionable and their minds are not yet formed.

The Obama train keeps amoving down the track - clickety clack, clikety clack - change, change and don't look back - another Messiah is in our midst!

I guess we have become nationally depressed because of accumulated media-reporting over Iraq and nay-Sayer negativism, Katrina, homes price declines, mounting deficits, an inarticulate president and worthless Congress. So we are ready to grasp at fluff without questioning. Rather than have news analysts explain what is happening we should seek out answers from psychiatrists. My wife suggests that would only depress us further because we would get a slew of different conflicting opinions. She also pointed out comparisons favor Obama because of Hillary's high negatives and the performance of "it's your husband stupid."(See 3 below.)

Netanyahu's close advisor resigns after being deterred by other staff members in his quest to help the former PM. (See 4 below.)

I have posted a fascinating article about whether Israel has a legal obligation to supply Gazan Palestinians with food, electricity etc. Since Israel is deemed, under international law concepts, to still be partially in control of Gaza, even though it has no forces there, international law suggests Israel has legal obligations. The issue was raised by Britain's foreign secretary. Naturally, as the writer points out, Britain's foreign secretary said nothing about Egypt's responsibility.

Of course, sanctions and possible blockades against Iran would be acceptable because "big boys" are free to do whatever they wish if they can get it by Russia and China in the U.N. but small potatoes (If I did not spell this right I can never be anyone's Veep.) have to abide by handcuffing legal-eze.

We must tolerate radical Islamic terrorists cutting heads off reporters but we cannot water-board them to discern where their next attack is coming. We cannot incarcerate in comfortable jail cells but terrorists can stone women in a public square.

Because we are more humane we cannot stoop to the level of our enemies yet we fire bombed Dresden, dropped atomic bombs on Japanese cities. Has political correctness tied our hands? Is there a rational solution or will hysteria continue to dictate and shape our ability to both defend ourselves and triumph over those who want to destroy us?

The IDF is indoctrinated in humane warfare but when the media reports mounting casualties as a consequence public hue and cry rises.

I wish I had an acceptable answer. When it comes to war, I believe, like the Clintons, you do what you gotta do and when you have won you stop and go back to assuming a more humane position. I won't win nay votes that way but the only thing I am running is my mouth.

Ne'eman reviews The Winograd Report and calls for Olmert's resignation. It is not forthcoming because Olmert is arrogant and places rebuilding his shredded image above that of protecting his government and doing the responsible thing. He could take a page from Romney's play book. (See 5 below.)


Dick.




1)ANALYSIS: Hamas banks on IDF invasion to deliver final blow to Abbas
By Zvi Barel


Those who follow the news on Hamas' Website or hear its spokesmen will have a difficult time deciding who Hamas' real enemy is. Is it Israel? Egypt's state media, which launched a media offensive against the organization behind the breach of Egypt's border? Or is it the Palestinian Authority, depicted as an enemy in cahoots with the Zionist entity?

After all, the fire of Qassam rockets at Israel is determined by its relationship with Fatah, the Palestinian Authority and the Arab governments, just as much as it is by Israel's response. In a way, the Qassams are aimed not only against Israel but also at Ramallah and Cairo.

"Hamas will not allow anyone to undermine its military power that manifested itself in the seizure of the Gaza Strip, nor shall it allow anyone to undermine its political power that manifested itself in its near complete control of the Palestinian parliament," wrote Abdullah al-Rahim, a Palestinian supporter of Hamas. "[Hamas] is not stupid and will therefore not permit the international, Arab and Islamic sense of outrage over the suffocating siege of Gaza to dissipate.

On the other hand, al-Rahim claims that "Fatah will not be able to concede political defeat by allowing Hamas to govern or even give it any kind of legitimacy. That is why it is demanding Hamas completely abandon its gains in what it calls a 'coup.' This goal cannot be realized because Hamas will not be easily willing to relinquish its gains that cost Palestinian blood."

Here lay the epicenter of the internecine Palestinian struggle in which Israel has become a pawn. One aspect of this struggle is control of the Rafah crossing, which has already sparked threatening clashes with Egypt. Saudia Arabia and Cairo understand Hamas will not completely relinquish control of the crossings or of its political standing to veto any diplomatic process. For a long time they have been trying to reconcile between Fatah and Hamas. At this stage, they know it will be to risky ¬ for Egypt in particular ¬ to severe ties with Hamas, which manipulates Arab public opinion so well. But Egyptian concessions to Hamas humiliate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

In the diplomatic arena, Hamas believes a confrontation with Israel that may shed a lot of blood will make their organization seem heroic in the eyes of the Arab public. Particularly, it will prevent Abbas from negotiating with Israel while Israel crushes neighborhoods in Gaza. At the same time, criticism against the organization by its Fatah foes will be construed as supporting Israel as it slays Palestinians.

Such a military campaign, Hamas believes, threatens Abbas just as much as it does Hamas and the citizens of Gaza. Renewing talks between Fatah and Hamas is seen as the last ditch effort to avoid confrontation with Israel, but Abbas will not allow it.

How long Abbas will be able to stand firm in his opposition in light of Syrian and Egyptian pressure to renew talks with Hamas is the question on everybody's mind. If Israel carries out a military operation in Gaza, he will have to review his stance toward Israel and Hamas, which may be the biggest beneficiary of such a scenario.

2) Ashkenazi: IDF ready to widen Gaza actions as much as needed
By Yuval Azoulay


Israel Defense Forces Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi said Monday the army is ready to expand its operations against Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip, but is waiting on orders from the political echelon.

"The IDF is prepared and ready to deepen and expand the operations in Gaza as much as necessary, in accordance with [the political echelon's] decisions," said Ashkenazi during a conference of top military officers at the IAF base in Hatzor.

"The coming year will be full of security challenges, and IDF must be prepared to meet them," he added.

During the conference, IDF officers presented the army's goals and working plans for the coming year, at times touching on the lessons learned from the Second Lebanon War as well as the Winograd Committee's final report on the war.

'We are still examining the report in order to determine whether there is something that we have not shown the spotlight on in the past year and a half and demands attention," said a senior officer. "It isn't clear that there is such a thing."

Barak: Israel won't be deterred from acting against Qassams

Defense Minister Ehud Barak also attended the conference, hours after vowing that Israel would not be deterred from taking the necessary military action to restore security to the residents of the Qassam rocket-bombarded south.

"The IDF will act in any way necessary in order to restore security and quiet to Sderot and the Gaza border area," Barak told the Labor Party Knesset faction on Monday. "The primary objective - halting Qassam rocket fire and significantly reducing the strengthening [of terror organizations] through weapons smuggling."

The defense minister said Sderot residents have a right to be angry. "The fury and pain are natural, human, and justified," he said. "The government has the responsibility to ensure their security, to help in any way possible, and to embrace them warmly."

"We are open to any idea," Barak continued. "There are a lot of people who have come to me with various ideas. It is important that we listen but keep them to ourselves. When concrete modes of operation are discussed on the radio, they are liable to serve our enemies."

"You don't need to be a military expert in order to understand that if you identify a concrete goal - it won't happen," he said. "If we identify the structures that we are going to strike, they won't be there. I recommend that all of us avoid detailed public discussion on technical operational aspects."

Earlier Monday, Barak said that he had instructed the Israel Defense Forces to prepare for a possible wide-scale operation in the Gaza Strip in response to the ongoing Qassam rocket attacks from the coastal territory.

Barak told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Israel would not rule out any possible course of action to bring quiet back to the western Negev and security to the residents of Sderot and nearby communities.

"IDF operations are continuing day and night and will even be expanded," hen told committee members.

The defense minister said that in recent days, the IDF has killed 61 Palestinian militants. He added that over the last four months, 200 militants have been killed by Israeli fire.

Qassam fire "will not stop in two days or even in two weeks, but the army will stop the phenomenon," said Barak.

During a meeting on security developments Sunday, and at the weekly cabinet meeting, Barak and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that Israel needs to continue its preparations for a large-scale military operation in the Gaza Strip, but that there is no point in rushing into one.

Chief of Staff Gabi Ashkenazi recently gave orders for such preparations, but army sources insist that they have not received any order to initiate an operation. Military sources said that such operation is not likely to begin for several more weeks.

Barak has reiterated that Israel will not embark on a military operation unless Israel defines its goals, "has a [political] exit plan" and prepares the ground for broad international support for its action.

3) Obama's Politics of Collective Redemption
By Kyle-Anne Shiver

"Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic." Pope Benedict XVI

A messianic fever grips a segment of the American populace and media. A great leader seems to them poised to redeem our collective sins and change nearly everything, bringing about a new era in which permanent solutions are found to age-old conditions.

Whenever I watch Barack Obama, listen to his eloquent but nonspecific oratory, and see the near-swooning young people who invariably follow him wherever he goes, I cannot help but think of the pied piper and wonder toward what destination he is marching our youth. pied piper of ChicagoObama is having this pied-piper effect not only on kids, but also on a large swath of Democrat and not a few independents and Republican voters, too.

Call me skeptical, but this whole Obama phenomenon seems downright eerie.

Over and over again, Obama invokes his double mantra: "It's time for change!" and "Yes, we can!"

Singer Wil.i.am's (Yes, that's right; it's Wil I Am.) YouTube "Yes, we can!" video has already had over 2 million hits, and it has a hypnotic quality reminiscent of eastern religious meditations. I urge every American still capable of thinking for himself to take a serious look at this video.

Then, consider these numbers on recent Google searches using only Obama's name plus one other word:

* Obama + messianic 75,200
* Obama + savior 226,000
* Obama + prophet 312,000
* Obama + Christ 504,000
* Obama + change 4,540,000


A number of internet postings indicate that a great many see Obama in not only political terms, but also wrapped in the untarnished cloak of some vague spiritual-awakening.

It is quite tempting to assume that Barack Obama simply is harvesting the inevitable fruits of 35 years of dumbed-down, political indoctrination in the guise of education in this country. This is dangerous. The problem goes deeper, right into the human soul.

A lust for transformation is a common feature of revolutionaries, and when they succeed in grabbing power, the results usually are brutal. Less than a century ago, massive numbers of people fell for a different political messiah on the European continent, and they were products of an education system and cultural establishment widely regarded as a world leader.

That place was, of course, Germany. And the political messiah promoting "change" was Adolph Hitler.

Hitler's slogan: "Alles muss anders sein!" ("Everything must be different!")

Hitler used each of these phrases to describe his own political program:

"A declaration of war against the order of things which exist, against the state of things which exist, in a word, against the structure of the world which presently exists."

"revolutionary creative will" which had "no fixed aim, no permanency, only eternal change."

"an ethic of self-sacrifice"

"people's community"

"public need before private greed"

"communally-minded social consciousness"


All of these expressions came from Adolph Hitler.

Saul Alinsky, one of Obama's primary political mentors, espoused eerily similar societal admonitions in his book Reveille for Radicals; p. 133 and 105:

"A People's Organization (later changed to "community organization") is dedicated to an eternal war. It is a war against poverty, misery, delinquency, disease, injustice, hopelessness, despair, and unhappiness."


and

"A People's Organization is not a philanthropic plaything or a social service's ameliorative gesture. It is a deep, hard-driving force, striking and cutting at the very roots of all the evils which beset the people...it thinks and acts in terms of social surgery and not cosmetic cover-ups."


and

"There is hope, and life is worth living. There may not be a light at the end of the trail but they (the masses) have a light in their hands, a light they made themselves, and they know that not only will they themselves have to work out their own destiny but that they themselves can."*


Obama says, "Yes we can!" change...

Exactly what should change and how is unclear. Everything?

Time for Tough Questions and Straight Answers

More than four months ago, when a reporter noticed that Obama was no longer wearing an American flag lapel pin, and asked if he were making a fashion statement, this was part of Obama's reply:

"Instead," (of wearing the pin) he said, "I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."

Well, here we are a week after Super Tuesday and it seems we are still waiting for Obama to expound upon the "what" and the "how" of this ethereal "change" mantra, to spell out his commitment to "patriotism."

Little has been made in the mainstream press of the brand of black liberation theology preached by Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr., who holds a master's degree on world religions with a focus on Islam, and who has traveled to Middle Eastern countries in the company of Louis Farrakhan. Rev. Wright created and presides over the Center for African Biblical studies, whose mission is African-centered Bible studies:

"We are an African people, and we remain true to our native land, the mother continent, the cradle of civilization."


Several forms of liberation theology sprouted during the 20th century, all espousing a third way between godless communism and the socialist utopian dream. All are predicated upon an acceptance that sin is not individual, but collective, and that sin cannot be overcome through religious conversion, but only by a people's struggle against all injustice. Congregations of various faiths and denominations have been used as platforms for collective statist approaches to human redemption. The social gospel espoused by religious-left churches in the U.S. is another form of liberation theology, which takes a political route to redemption for man's collective soul.

According to liberation theologies, God does not save men. Man saves himself through a political process of absolute social justice.

Writing in 2004, as Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Pope Benedict had this to say about liberation theology in his book, Truth and Tolerance (p. 116):

"...this struggle (against all injustice), it was said, would have to be a political struggle, because the structures (of oppression) were strengthened and maintained by politics. Thus redemption became a political process, for which Marxist philosophy offered the essential directions. It became a task that men themselves could -- indeed had to -- take in hand and became, at the same time, the object of quite practical hopes; faith was changed from ‘theory' into practice, into concrete redeeming action in the liberation process." (emphases mine)


Consider these statements from Obama's campaign website, contained in his video invitation for all to "join us in changing the Country."

"We believe in what this Country can be."

"In the face of war, we believe there can be peace."

"In the face of despair, we believe there can be hope."

"...America can be one people reaching for what's possible."


Obama indeed seems to be offering a people's government solution to all human problems. He is, after all, running for President of the United States, not for a pulpit. Substituting the state for God as provider has been the inherent common thread in all Marxist regimes.

And in this seemingly redemptive offering, Obama may be promising what only God can actually deliver, in the form of yet another, more eloquent, version of the same old utopian dream that started with Rousseau and Marx.

Can man successfully redeem himself through collective transformation and liberation?

Pope Benedict says "No" rather emphatically, in Truth and Tolerance. Writing of the fall of the Soviet Union:

"...where the Marxist ideology of liberation had been consistently applied, a total lack of freedom had developed, whose horrors were now laid bare before the eyes of the entire world. Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes not divine, but demonic."


Coincidentally, Saul Alinsky began his book Rules for Radicals:

"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins -- or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom -- Lucifer."


Attempting to discern true meaning from Obama's speeches gives one the feeling of having been trapped in a sort of verbal quicksand. Hair-pulling levels of frustration await any effort to find any specific meaning. A sensation of lethargic sinking into an abyss of abstract gibberish awaits the mind looking for specifics..

Obama's public statements, his speeches, even his "present" votes in the Illinois legislature leave one dangerously unsure of his true intentions.

Whatever Obama's concrete plans are, they ought to aligned with his political mentor, Saul Alinsky, and his spiritual mentor and liberation theology specialist, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

In the absence of any genuine explanations from candidate Obama himself, the change of which he speaks reasonably may be inferred to be quite antithetical to anything even remotely resembling American patriotism.

And that is a legitimate concern for every American voter.

4 Netanyahu's chief of staff, Naftali Bennett, resigns
By Gil Hoffman

Opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu's chief of staff, Naftali Bennett,
resigned Monday, citing irreconcilable differences with members of his
staff.

Bennett joined Netanyahu's office after the Second Lebanon War in which he
served. A hi-tech multimillionnaire who sold his company for $145 million,
he attempted to similarly build Netanyahu into a success. But his efforts
were foiled by other staff members and advisers who helped Netanyahu lead
the Likud from 40 seats to 12 in the last election.

Netanyahu thanked Bennett for his service and expressed hope that he would
return to his staff after he becomes prime minister.

5) Analysis: Is Gaza blockade a legitimate tool of war?
By ROBBIE SABEL

The British foreign secretary issued a carefully crafted statement this Friday expressing "concern" at reports that Israel had reduced electricity supplies to Gaza and called on Israel to "reverse its decision" and to "fulfill its obligations under international law."


The statement also "condemned" the suicide attack in Dimona and called upon the Palestinians to stop rocket attacks against "innocent civilians."

International law allows states to defend themselves not only against attacks by foreign states but also against attacks by terrorist groups emanating from states that are either unable or unwilling to prevent such attacks.

The classical rule of international law allowing self-defense against non-state terrorist attacks was reaffirmed explicitly by the UN Security Council after the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Center.

There has therefore been little, if any, recent international criticism of Israeli armed strikes against the rocket launchers and against Hamas operatives. States friendly to Israel apparently acquiesce to Israel's right to take measures of self-defense against such Hamas military targets.

Under international law, only military objectives are legitimate targets and deliberate attacks against civilians or against civilian targets constitute a violation of the laws of war. Military targets may be attacked even if the attack is liable to cause civilian casualties, provided that the civilian casualties caused will not be disproportional to the military benefit of the attack.

International law also forbids destruction of property, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations. Hence, if a building houses terrorists or terrorist Therefore, destruction of civilian houses as a punishment or deterrent, as proposed by some, would be clearly illegal. The fact that the other side, in this case Hamas, deliberately attacks civilian targets does not absolve Israel from its obligations.

The problematical legal issue, however, is whether Israel is also entitled to blockade the Gaza Strip as a whole and to prevent or curtail its supply of foodstuffs, fuel and electricity. The Hamas administration of the Gaza Strip is openly hostile, supports terrorist activity against Israel and for all intents and purposes is a belligerent entity. Up to and including the period of World War II blockade was regarded as a legitimate method of warfare. States imposed blockades as a regular feature of warfare.

However, modern international law prohibits "starvation of civilians" as a method of warfare. Moreover, beyond this "negative" prohibition, in times of armed conflict where an enemy population is "under the control" of an enemy state, then that state is prohibited from imposing collective punishment on the civilian population. Furthermore, the state in control has a positive obligation to ensure adequate food, services and supplies to the population under its control.

The international law status of the Gaza Strip is nebulous; it is not an independent state and no state recognizes it as such. However, it is no longer under Israeli military occupation. International law regards an area as being occupied when it is under the "effective control" of an enemy state. In Gaza there is no Israeli effective control. There are no Israeli soldiers or policemen stationed in the area. The laws, courts, police, prisons, taxes and administration are all Palestinian. There is no Israeli military governor and the fiat of Israeli military law does not apply there. This is in marked contrast to the situation when the Gaza Strip was under Israeli military administration.

But Israel controls the airspace and the sea approaches to the Strip and frequently carries out armed actions inside the area. Furthermore, as a result of the twenty years during which Gaza was under Israeli military administration, the area is dependent on Israel for most of its electricity. The over-use of local water resources has also meant that the Strip is dependent on Israel for much of its water supplies. The international community therefore regards Israel as continuing to have some responsibility for ensuring supplies to the civilian population and Israel itself acknowledges such responsibility.

Israel policy has been to use blockade against the Hamas administration as an anti-terrorist act of self-defense while allowing sufficient supply of food, fuel and electricity to prevent starvation or a humanitarian crisis. Every action against the Hamas administration inevitably harms the civilian population, but Israel has attempted to minimize it by ensuring a minimum necessary supply. This would appear to be a reasonable and logical interpretation of obligations under international law. However, the status of the Gaza Strip is to a large extent unique, or as the law says, sui generis; inevitably Israel is likely to be criticized for any action that negatively affects the civilian population.

One aspect totally ignored by the international community is the issue of Egyptian responsibility for the well-being of the population. For 20 years the area was under Egyptian military administration. Egypt now has control of its border with the Gaza Strip and could provide fuel for the Strip if it decided to do so. It is not clear whether Egypt has a legal obligation to provide fuel and electricity but it certainly is an issue that the international community should be studying.

5)Ne'eman reviews The Winograd Report and calls for Olmert's resignation. It is not forthcoming because Olmert is arrogant and places rebuilding his shredded image above that of protecting his government and doing the responsible thing. He could take a page from Romney;'s play book. (See 1 below.)

1) Winograd Report Implications
By Yisrael Ne'eman

“But did we win?” The answer is anything but “Yes.” Certainly no knock-out, but by the middle of August 2006 it appeared we were ahead on points. Today no one really knows, until the next round of course. Many believe Israel lost the war. And although the Hezbollah is quiet for the moment they are rearmed and gearing up for the next round sometime in the not so distant future. With the final publication of the Winograd Report in lieu of the Second War in Lebanon the IDF and the Israeli political system have once again been jolted. A majority of Israelis want PM Ehud Olmert to resign as a result of the “failure” to win the war against the Hezbollah a year and a half ago. He refuses, claiming he takes “full responsibility” and will continue initiating the improvements necessary in the army and overall preparation for the next encounter over Israel’s northern border.

To begin with there is much criticism of the Winograd Commission with many expecting personal recommendations to be made concerning PM Olmert, who is the only player still remaining after the resignations of the Defense Minister Amir Peretz and the Chief of Staff Dan Halutz. Other generals also resigned. Members of the Commission made it clear that it is their job to point out exactly what happened and to focus on deficiencies and failures of which there were plenty. As pointed out previously in these columns, the Commission is correct in not passing judgment on whether the PM should resign, that is up to the people. Already the Supreme Court has become overly activist and is seen as usurping the power of the Knesset and government. The Commission behaves very much as a judicial body, even if ad hoc, but it is certainly not responsible for crowning or de-throning prime ministers and should not take over the job of the people. Olmert gets a grade somewhere around a “D+”, hardly encouraging when leading a nation constantly under threat of attack.

The IDF came in for the most scathing criticism, mostly over what was already known. Halutz the air force general believed aerial bombing could solve most problems along with special unit operations and the usual help from the enlisted men. Ground forces were expected to remove the Hezbollah offensive line overlooking Israel by moving a kilometer or two inside Lebanon. Command and control, conflicting orders and unclear objectives bogged down what was supposed to be a fairly simple operation. It took a month and barely succeeded, especially when the original military objectives took a back seat to “consciousness” or “media” targets such as Bint J’bel a village of 70,000 seen as a Hezbollah symbol because of Hassan Nasrallah’s famous “Spider Web” speech where he ridiculed the IDF. The air force was very effective but one does not win a war destroying short range rocket launchers from the air, when they are replaced a few minutes later. Rather the launch zones must be captured, and that means a ground offensive.

Special units are just that, “special”, they do not win wars, and as for the enlisted army, they can take the lead at best but are dependent on the reserves to gain an overall victory. Unfortunately the enlisted army was battling Palestinian terror and not ready for a real war. For years the military suffered from cutbacks across the boards, but in particular training schedules for the reserves barely existed, hence even a call-up would first need a week of maneuvers before putting anyone on the battlefield. Yes, there were contingency plans as such drawn up by former defense minister and former army chief of staff Shaul Mofaz (today transport minister), but the plan was only partially implemented very late in the game. And as everyone knows, neither the former defense minister nor the PM were military men and they were led into a ground war by an overly self-confident air force general. The Report sees decision making as disorganized, haphazard and not directed at achieving a specific objective. It often seemed that the army mission was to kill as many Hezbollah extremists as possible (not a bad idea in itself) without the objective of halting katuysha rocket fire into Israel or breaking the back of Nasrallah’s Khomeinist Islamists. Overall the average soldier fought well but the upper level command performed poorly.

The last 60 hours of the war became the main focus of attention and “somehow” Olmert and everyone else came out without condemnation. With a UN cease-fire on the horizon why did Israel continue ground action and even make a major push into the Saluki river bed (inside Lebanon just west of the Galilee panhandle)? It was thought that a victory here would improve the terms of the UN cease-fire. There are arguments for and against. The bottom line is that the Saluki push was less than successful and 33 soldiers were killed in the last two and a half days (including the central and western sectors). The Report does not condemn the decision but shows great understanding for the dilemmas faced by the decision makers. Why?

Throughout Israel’s wars there has always been that last push to improve one’s position before the cease-fire. It January 1949 during the War of Independence we worked to cut off the Egyptian army completely at Rafiah in southern Gaza but lack of battlefield success and British intervention halted what quite possibly would have been the collapse of the Gaza salient which we suffer from until today. Just imagine how different everything would look if the entire Gaza issue was in Al-Arish and northeast Sinai. In 1967 Israel captured the Golan on June 9-10 (171 killed) after the Four Day War was over with the defeat of Egypt and Jordan. This window of opportunity removed the immediate Syrian military threat from Israel’s northeast front and gave Israel a buffer during the Yom Kippur War. In the 1973 Yom Kippur War Israel made a double push during and after the cease-fire, one on the Egyptian side of the Canal Zone at Suez City (a dismal failure with dozens killed) and the other become the great success of recapturing the Hermon mountain peak position so important for Israeli intelligence (dozens more casualties) but lost on the first day of the war. In the 1982 First Lebanon War the last minute push into Sultan Ya’akub by the armored corps turned into a disaster when confronted with anti-tank fire directed by Syrian and Palestinian commandos (Ehud Barak commanded the operation).

Had there been a total victory in the last 60 hours with immediate defined objectives being obtained the atmosphere would be quite different. It comes down to the bottom line that the soldiers “died in vain” not that they became casualties. Much of the operation was in removing Hezbollah from the border areas but it was done in such a slovenly fashion by the higher command as to make victory virtually impossible. The war had been executed in an incompetent manner during the first four weeks and therefore none should have expected that another 60 hours would make a difference, hence many believe, no last minute offensive should have been ordered. Such an argument makes sense based on the immediate battlefield performance at the time but it certainly does not categorically rule out last minute offensives. A major success in the last 60 hours may have even freed the PM from his declared objective of returning the two abducted soldiers, Regev and Goldwasser.

Yes, Olmert should resign but not necessarily because of the populist reasons bantered about. A major call-up and ground offensive should have been ordered previously, just as envisioned by Mofaz when he served in Ariel Sharon’s second government. Contingency plans written up by qualified ground commanders are to be used effectively, not thrown out. Secondly, his judgment concerning the last 60 hour push was faulty based on the previous month’s experience. The upper level command was incompetent and upon having it proven to him time and again the conclusion should have been drawn that the objectives during the last push would not be achieved. The reach was too far in too short a time frame.

Diplomatically, UN Resolution 1701 was a success at the time, but no longer. The resolution is constantly violated through weapons imports from Syria and Iran to the Hezbollah. True the Lebanese army and the UN are deployed in south Lebanon, but it appears they may have become a human shield for the Hezbollah unless they flee should a conflict break out. The Israeli public is in the dark about what is happening in south Lebanon and deserves an explanation.

No less weighty than all other reasons is the fact that PM Olmert is now the center of attention and virtually all political activity. A dangerous political paralysis is setting in. Time is wasted with arguments pro and con as to whether he should resign. He, as the ultimate divisive political personality must remove himself from the national focus and attention so energies can be spent on political decision making to ensure national rehabilitation. Using his experience Olmert can help correct the wrongs of the past, but not as a serving prime minister.

Either someone else from the ruling Kadima faction should become prime minister or there needs to be an agreed upon date for new Knesset elections.