web analytics
July 2, 2015 / 15 Tammuz, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Home » InDepth » Op-Eds »

Olmert’s Liberal Mindset To Blame For Lebanon Fiasco


Clichéd postmortems analyzing Israel’s failure to deal Hezbollah a clear defeat miss the point in blaming Prime Minister Olmert’s lack of military experience or native ineptness. The key reasons for Israel’s poor performance are deeper and far more ideological.

True, Olmert lacked the military background of certain of his predecessors. But defending a country is more an issue of strategic judgment than a question of whether or for how long a person wore fatigues. Ronald Reagan, who never saw battle, defeated the Soviet Union in the Cold War. Moreover, Olmert, a calculating man, is hardly inept or disorganized.

Rather, Israel lost – or at least did not win – the war because the core liberal-secular beliefs of its leaders made them too militarily cautious in confronting the cult of death represented by Hizbullah. Morale, more so than Merkava tanks, determines which side better understands the end game of war and accordingly musters the nerve to make the necessary sacrifices. In other words, modern guerrilla warfare is as much about ideology as F-16s, which is why Hizbullah fanaticism triumphed over Olmert’s secular mindset.

Like all thinking people, Olmert is driven by basic political and social values. While believing himself strongly committed to the security of Israel, he is also very much a product of contemporary Western culture – its notion of acceptable nationalism, its emphasis on diplomatic rather than military solutions, its distaste for military violence.

Since Olmert is not an observant Jew, his understanding of political right and wrong in a global culture is similar to that of respectable secular-minded American Jewish liberals. One group speaks and thinks in Hebrew, the other in English – but both operate under the same assumptions and reach the same conclusions in the articles penned by their academics and the reporting and editorializing in their elite newspapers and opinion journals.

(In my despair during the fighting, I amused myself by substituting Olmert with certain American Jewish liberals whose reputations are marked by a reluctance to take the battle too forcefully to the enemy, i.e., Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Clinton National Security Adviser Sandy Berger.)

“White guilt in the West,” writes historian Shelby Steele (Wall Street Journal, August 22, 2006), prevents the Left from facing up to Islamic extremism. “The West is so terrified of being charged with its old sins of racism, imperialism, and colonialism that it makes oppression an automatic prism on the non-Western world”

How much was this endemic sense of liberal guilt responsible for Olmert’s failure to use the full force of the Israeli military? What was the relationship between his advocacy of convergence (withdrawal from parts of the West Bank from which future rocketing of Israel could take place in exchange for nothing from the other side) while battles were still underway, and his complacent use of infantry on the ground? Did he feel some doubt about the rightness of annihilating the invaders for fear of being called an oppressor?

Olmert’s ideologically liberal mindset provides a context for understanding Israel’s inability to defeat an extremist enemy with a take-no-prisoners mentality. Throughout the fighting, Olmert’s message cast doubt on the legitimacy of Israel’s cause. Given Hizbullah’s apocalyptic commitment to the mass murder of the infidel Jews, Olmert’s deliberately limited response (reminiscent of Lyndon Johnson’s defeatist “limited war” strategy in Vietnam), the case could be made that he was worn down at some level by trendy liberal support for “oppressed” peoples.

A militarily committed prime minister would never have handed over the Ministry of Defense to a union boss holding Peace Now credentials. In response to Hizbullah’s act of war, Olmert’s original puny goal was to secure four villages and a strip of territory six miles wide and 2.5 miles along the border. Instead of threatening Hizbullah’s Syrian arms supplier, Israel repeatedly made clear that it would not attack Damascus. The decision to call up reserves came only after public pressure.

Even so, Olmert’s deputy prime minister, the tiresome Shimon Peres, voted against the plan to move thousands of troops into Lebanon, arguing that Israel should rely on diplomacy, the liberals’ favorite tack for dealing with military violence. Not to be outdone, Olmert also showed his penchant for diplomacy over military force when, after a public outcry, Israel finally called up some 30,000 troops.

About the Author: Ron Rubin is a senior political scientist at CUNY and author most recently of “A Jewish Professor's Political Punditry” (Syracuse University Press, 2013).


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

No Responses to “Olmert’s Liberal Mindset To Blame For Lebanon Fiasco”

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
Gerstenfeld-070315
Will Defeating Islamic State Take More Than A Generation?
Latest Indepth Stories
Gerstenfeld-070315

What if years from now, IS were to control substantial territory? What world havoc would that wreak?

Rabbi Yeheskel Lebovic

Rambam writes the verse’s double term refers to 2 messiahs: first King David; 2nd the final Mashiach

The Marianne boat, carrying humanitarian aid such, as a single and useless solar panel.

The Gaza flotilla has been rightfully and legally blocked by Israel’s Navy, with greetings from Bibi

The president described the attack as “an act that drew on a long history of bombs and arson and shots fired at churches, not random, but as a means of control, a way to terrorize and oppress…”

“The only [candidate] that’s going to give real support to Israel is me,” said the 69-year-old Trump.

And whereas at the outset the plan was that Iran would have to surrender most of its centrifuges, it will now be able to retain several thousand.

Now oil independent, US no longer needs its former strategic alliances with Gulf States-or Israel

In addition to the palace’s tremendous size it was home to the “hanging gardens,” which were counted among the seven wonders of the ancient world.

Rather than asserting Jewish rights on Temple Mount or protecting Jewish lives Israel chooses soccer

Nothing in the NEW Paris Proposal differs much from what was offered by Olmert and rejected by Abbas

No longer will delegitimization efforts go unchallenged. That’s a silence we will continue to break.

Increasingly, Sweden is becoming a country where anti-Semitism & supporting terrorism is acceptable.

Rabbi Pfeffer points out that at his site, there are no one-line answers. “We want to show the people we’re interested in their questions,” he says.

The problem with US treatment of Israel did not start with Obama but with birth of Jewish State

More Articles from Ron Rubin
President Barack Obama

During Obama’s tenure, Jews identifying as Republican or “leaning” Republican jumped more than 50%

Chabad-affiliated St. Petersburg Choral Synagogue,

The Jewish population of Moscow numbers well over 100,000.

For two thousand years, Jews exiled from their homeland and lacking political sovereignty were easy targets for elitist rulers on the right and the pseudo-egalitarian mob on the left. When Emancipation came and Jews exited the ghettos, Jewish self-made pitfalls were no less horrific, as many embraced the trendy “isms” of secular society only to spiritually assimilate and disappear from history. Yet despite the persecutions, on the one hand, and the enticements of some host countries’ cultures, on the other, the Jewish nation lives.

Though the ranks of single-issue pro-Israel Jewish voters (they comprise perhaps one-fourth of the Jewish electorate) have contracted as a result of mounting assimilation, those voters have nonetheless learned a lot over the past sixteen years.

Given his swaggered walk and ineloquent delivery, George W. Bush is an easy one to underestimate. But pundits and politicians do so at their own peril, cases in point being Al Gore and John Kerry, two gentlemen who like to think of themselves as high cultivated and erudite.

Having spent earlier sabbaticals here in Israel, I knew the subject of aliyah loomed as a background issue but hardly expected the untold ways it would recast itself.

At the restaurant farewell dinner, Professor Dov Zlotnick asked the dozen or so students of his forty-year-running Saturday afternoon Talmud shiur to continue their learning despite his approaching retirement to Jerusalem.

Thanks to Fred Lebow, founder of the New York City Marathon, some 500,000 Americans will run in marathons this year. In my book Anything for a T-Shirt: Fred Lebow and the New York City Marathon, the World’s Greatest Footrace (Syracuse University Press, 2004), I show how Lebow, a Holocaust survivor, changed the notion of this 26.2 mile race, which this year will be held on Sunday, Nov. 5, from a grueling, sweaty showcase for elite runners into a people’s competition.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/olmerts-liberal-mindset-to-blame-for-lebanon-fiasco/2006/08/30/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: