Wednesday, January 30, 2008

First Reaction

I listened carefully to Judge Eliyahu Winograd's overview and summary.

One thing that really bothered me was a politicized remark he made towards the end when he said that peace can be achieved only through compromises.

Here's the exact words in the press release at their site in paragraph 38:

Israel must - politically and morally - seek peace with its neighbors
and make necessary compromises.

Should be here (click on ינואר 2008 and then click on the English link)

A compromise? Compromises? Why? Under what circumstances? What do we give up? Do we give up the Sinai Peninsula even unto the last grain of sand? Taba? Gaza? Parts of the Aravah and upper Jordan River?

We've done that and I don't see any lessening of the intensive internal intrinsic [III] Arab/Islamic opposition to any Jewish sovereignty, any Jewish political or religious administration anywhere in the historic Land of Israel. On what else can we compromise? Our Jewish character, whether religious, cultural, historic and ethnic? Should we grant the Arabs of the north the autonomy they demand? Do we yield on the "right of return"? What does the Winograd Committee demand as "necessary compromises?


Suzanne Pomeranz said...

The big question here is this:

Wasn't the Winograd Commission charged with reviewing the events of the War in Lebanon 2007 and reporting on their findings vis-a-vis the behavior of the government?

And if so, what right does the Winograd Commission have in making political recommendations? IMHO - NONE!

Which comment "might" make the rest of their findings suspect... which, after all, is what would benefit only and surely the PM.

Batya said...

If I heard right, they also agreed with Olmert that it was an achievement to get foreign troops.