In an interesting op-piece in Haaretz Yossi Sarid compares 2 failed leaders, Bush and Olmert, thus:
"Lady Luck has come to Bush and Olmert's aid. The mess in New Orleans has almost overshadowed the Iraq fiasco, because Bush now has an urgent national mission: to put Louisiana and Alabama back on their feet again. And don't bother him about the 800 or so who are shot or slaughtered or beheaded in Iraq every month - and a few more in Afghanistan.
And what would Olmert have done without his own hurricane? Now, thank goodness, he too has a national mission of the highest priority. Without the war, the government would have remained devoid of vision, and without vision the nation would have settled accounts with it. So don't bother Olmert about the 1.5 million poor, or the malignant corruption, or the occupation whose final countdown to a unilateral withdrawal has been stopped.
Bush will continue and Olmert will continue, because in practical terms there is no way to get rid of lame ducks, and the road of the lame is sometimes a long cul-de-sac. American protests and Israeli protests have so far been unable to gain momentum, and are still at the stage of a low-category tropical storm. The protesters and demonstrators have not managed to close ranks, to formulate a clear message, to identify an alternative, to erase unfounded suspicions of each other. All this is true, but it is not the most important thing.
In an article in the New York Times last week, Andrew Rosenthal attempted to solve the enigma: Where have all the Vietnam War protesters of the 1960s and 1970s gone? After all, the great majority of Americans are fed up with Bush, so why is their voice not being heard? Rosenthal finds the explanation in the repeal of compulsory military service. At a personal level, the war in Iraq hardly touches the middle class. It is not their sons risking their lives far from home, only the sons of the lower classes.
Compulsory service is still in force in Israel, so Rosenthal's thesis does not quite solve our own enigma. Still, I will propose a similar explanation. Perhaps this war was too limited, limited in time and scope. Perhaps the number of fatalities on both the battlefield and the home front was not high enough to fuel a protest movement. Perhaps only the next war, which is likely to be longer and more lethal, will fill the country with protest - and what a protest it will be."
Read the full piece here.
"Lady Luck has come to Bush and Olmert's aid. The mess in New Orleans has almost overshadowed the Iraq fiasco, because Bush now has an urgent national mission: to put Louisiana and Alabama back on their feet again. And don't bother him about the 800 or so who are shot or slaughtered or beheaded in Iraq every month - and a few more in Afghanistan.
And what would Olmert have done without his own hurricane? Now, thank goodness, he too has a national mission of the highest priority. Without the war, the government would have remained devoid of vision, and without vision the nation would have settled accounts with it. So don't bother Olmert about the 1.5 million poor, or the malignant corruption, or the occupation whose final countdown to a unilateral withdrawal has been stopped.
Bush will continue and Olmert will continue, because in practical terms there is no way to get rid of lame ducks, and the road of the lame is sometimes a long cul-de-sac. American protests and Israeli protests have so far been unable to gain momentum, and are still at the stage of a low-category tropical storm. The protesters and demonstrators have not managed to close ranks, to formulate a clear message, to identify an alternative, to erase unfounded suspicions of each other. All this is true, but it is not the most important thing.
In an article in the New York Times last week, Andrew Rosenthal attempted to solve the enigma: Where have all the Vietnam War protesters of the 1960s and 1970s gone? After all, the great majority of Americans are fed up with Bush, so why is their voice not being heard? Rosenthal finds the explanation in the repeal of compulsory military service. At a personal level, the war in Iraq hardly touches the middle class. It is not their sons risking their lives far from home, only the sons of the lower classes.
Compulsory service is still in force in Israel, so Rosenthal's thesis does not quite solve our own enigma. Still, I will propose a similar explanation. Perhaps this war was too limited, limited in time and scope. Perhaps the number of fatalities on both the battlefield and the home front was not high enough to fuel a protest movement. Perhaps only the next war, which is likely to be longer and more lethal, will fill the country with protest - and what a protest it will be."
Read the full piece here.
Comments