Here’s the sort of comment that Antony Loewenstein, might want to see more of, I think. At the least it’s openly critical of the current Israeli leadership, to the point where the leader of Hezbollah is suggested as a better example of success in power than the Israeli PM.
It’s highly likely that this sort of comment would be widely condemned if made by anyone ouside the country.
At this point in Olmert’s career, about the only thing that could save Olmert’s head, is that of Hassan Nasrallah.
Maybe that’s our answer. If assassinating or abducting the Hezbollah leader is still on the agenda, as Israeli officials maintain, why not put Nasrallah to useful purpose?
Look at the issues. Consider his record. Here is a man who is both strong and wise on security issues. He saw to it that his troops were well-prepared, well-trained, well-supplied, and and well-protected.
Nasrallah would be a new sort of Israeli leader. One who gets things done.
Of course the article blasts the anti-settlement movement, and does it under dubious terms. Since the has been no serious peace offer or withdrawal from occupied territory by Israel, saying that theÂ political left is undermined by the Hezbollah rocket attacks is quite specious. I do agree that the hardliners are having to work harder to justify their continued occupation. It’s no longer a situation that mainly kills Palestinian civilians, but one that affects more and Israelis and drains money away from social progams into propping up the military effort. Apparently one in three children in Israel live in poverty.