- This topic has 18 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 1 year ago by .
-
Posts
-
In a well functioning democracy, a leader who presides over a catastrophic security failure leading to the deaths of more than 1000 civilians would accept responsibility for it and offer to resign. As far as I can tell, Netanyahu has not yet made any statement accepting responsibility for the Hamas attack and failure to protect Israeli citizens. When will he, as leader of the country, step up and say he is responsible? Why is he allowing his underlings to do it instead? Is that leadership?
When pigs fly?
Yussel: after the war. you cannot change horses in midstream.
After the war. Just as Golda Meir did. Note that the reason Chamberlain resigned was not the mess he had made, but because he was near death from natural causes. Sometimes they last long enough to turn defeat into victory, and are remembered not as the idiot who got into the mess, but as the great leader who won the war (e.g. Roosevelt and Stalin).
If the reason for Hamas success was something Netanyahu had no control (e.g. they figured out not to use smartphones to communicate, and set up the invasion using only paper and oral commands, without using the cell networks or the internet), then the blame will fall on the military more than the politicians.
“In a well functioning democracy, a leader who presides over a catastrophic security failure leading to the deaths of more than 1000 civilians would accept responsibility for it and offer to resign.“
Ever heard of 9/11? Did Bush “resign” afterwards?
After 9/11, not only did Americans not punish George W. Bush, they rewarded him with a second term. And that’s after he got US involved in the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
>>>In a well functioning democracy, a leader who presides over a catastrophic security failure leading to the deaths of more than 1000 civilians would accept responsibility for it and offer to resign.
Not true. Bush didn’t resign after 9/11. Roosevelt didn’t resign after Pearl Harbor. etc. Leaders rarely resign after some disaster happens. The exception would be if (1)there was an intrinsic reason why they should have known, like they were warned or (2) The disaster was clearly the result of some prior action they took.
If leaders resigned over catastrophic security failures than the leader of any democracy that gets attacked by some other country would have to resign afterwards.
1) the entire security establishment must go. This is obvious.
2) the legal establishment must be immediately stripped of all power as their policies have brought about an existential threat to the states existence, not to mention the deaths of thousands of Jews.
3) netanyahu must resign as Hamas built up during his 12 years of leadership.
Furthermore, he never stood up to or replaced the corrupt military and legal establishment so their failures are his failures.
4) the problem w getting rid of netanyahu is that his replacement will likely be even worse.
5) none of the changed can wait until after the war since all of the people who are managing this war are either corrupt or incompetent and have no business managing a war which is a serious existential threat to the state and the lives of millions of Jews who live there
6) the murder of that woman in Detroit does not bode well for the Diaspora. If we think this is a ‘them’ ‘israel’ problem, think again. America at least has moved past stam Nazi rhetoric into maasim.
6) b’kitzur, we are up the creek wo a paddle. Start crying out to Hashem asap
9/11 is not the same as this for many reasons. For starters, Bibi was PM for 15 years pretty much straight He wasn’t brand new. Therefore,
1) He was the one who ensured that Gaza was safe. He built the way for $7B Shekel. He oversaw the safety of the gaza border. The fact that he banked the safety solely on a wall was a big mistake. It was hinged on technology that could be hacked or busted.
2) Why did it take the army 6-8 hours to respond? Bibi speaks all day of the danger of Iran. Imagine if CVS they attacked, would it take 8 hours to round up troops?
3) They were training out in the open and Israel knew they trained how to capatrure mock cities. they laughed at it and didn’t take it seriousAll of this was not the case with 9/11
Now is NOT the time for him or them or you to discuss this.
Can’t you hold it in until after the war beH?We here don’t fully appreciate what Israeli security apparatus is against. We are not often even aware about threats that were eliminated. Every army gets a share of political and bureaucratic leaders during prolonged peace time. As always happens, during a crisis, these really hapless officers will be quickly dismissed from inside.
Bibi lead country thru very difficult times often paired with a US administration that wasn’t helpful. He isn’t reflexive pro war person, as evident by his peace agreements when he had support from US administration. As to political distractions, his opponents are as guilty if not more, and if they call for political changes now, that is even more suspicious. I would trust more the opposition figures who joined the unity government.
After the next election, it is unlikely Bibi will still be the leader. The question is will Likud still be considered a right wing party, as opposed to a left wing party in a world in which the “center” are those in favor of “transfer”.
theirs no doubt in anyones mind that heads will roll and BIBI will need to step down and be forced out but right now when in the midst of this crises isnt the time to discuss this
take a tillim instead!It would be a further sign of Israeli weakness and therefore a major security threat to the country were he to resign just now.
Whether he accepts responsibility or not, he will be booted out at the ballot box (or by some other means) at the earliest opportunity, so it makes no practical difference.
Perhaps, if the military operation goes “well” and the electorate begin leaning towards him again, he might be in a secure enough position to try to curry their favour by admitting a few of his failures.
He’s a fairly stiff-necked fellow.
I wouldn’t call for “political changes” Keep Likud but a new leader and not Bibi. I am Ok with ben Gvir to.
Chamberlain was kicked out during the darkest days of WW2, bc he was the wrong person to prosecute the war. Churchill, who was the right person to prosecute the war replaced him, during the war. DURING THE WAR.
Similarly, in 1973, golda MEIR had Dayan replace the idiot who was responsible for the catastrophe on the day after Yom kippur. DURING THE WAR. DURING THE WAR. AT THE DARKEST POSSIBLE MOMENT.
Netanyahu is clearly not the person to wage ANY fight where he faces any opposition except the one to keep his shteller. Unfortunately Obama was right when he referred to Netanyahu as chicken waste.
Netanyahu must be replaced now or thousands of soldiers lived will be lost for nothing, and the state will be in existential danger in short order. And the empty words – ‘never again’ will be shown to be empty words in a practical way.
Well, today he acknowledged that everyone (including himself) will be subject to scrutiny at the appropriate time, without at any point taking an iota personal responsibility. At least some of the IDF and intelligence leadership has acknowledged they screwed up Meanwhile, his hostage negotiator (Hirsch) jumps into the first photos of the released hostages even though he had zero role in the negotiations. You would think a negotiator tasked with dealing with Arab state intermediaries would at least speak Arabic (which he doesn’t).
Chaim, you seem to look at things from political point of view. This is currently a military situation, requiring experience and dedication. You seem to casually compare a prime minister with wealth of military and political experience at highest world level with someone who bio seems to consist of being a lawyer and a politician.
same for BY1212, you do not address all previous successes that Bibi had. Just think of current muted reaction by most moderate Arab countries – that are due to improved relationship under Bibi/Trump that Bibi worked on for a long time. I mention just the recent events, skipping things lioke post-Oslo that may have happened before your bat/r mitzva.
Success? BiBi? Who are you kidding?
Bibi had plenty of chances during his 13 yr reign to destroy or at a minimum prevent Hamas from metastasizing into its current monstrous form.
His ‘vision’ is one of יהיה בסדר.
Free a million Hamas leaders for Gilad Shalit? יהיה בסדר. אנחנו חזקים מהם.
His record is one of complete failure re gaza.
Whatever the exact nature of the failures of oct. 7 they clearly had to do with this יהיה בסדר attitude and as pm he should have been on top of the army to make sure proper military attitudes were held
He is a complete security failure.
His legacy is one of 13 years of unanswered constant rocket barrages.
But he makes good speeches and talks tough.
And he did a really good job with his priority one goal:
Preventing Iran from going nuclear and generally expanding influence in the region. Yeah, Bibi has it all under control
And according to your ‘brilliant’ logic why did Chamberlain have to resign ? He was just a politician, not a military leader. And the obvious answer, once you stop trying to be an ibber chochom and start having the humbleness to using boring, non gaavadig common sense is – bc in a democracy, the military gets its vision and direction from the political echelon. They are just the experts or at least we hope so, in carrying out those directives.
The only hop Israel has is ironically bibi’s vanity. He knows if he doesn’t do something serious this time he and his ‘legacy’ will be mud forever and nothing positive will remain from anything he did. Kinda like Nixon and Watergate.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.