A lot of the difference between Israel and America on accountability is simply the difference between presidential and parliamentary systems generally based on the parliamentary distinction between heads of state and heads of government. When the PM is viewed simply as a successful politician, and does not serve a fixed term, it's a lot easier to hold him or her accountable than it is the American president/demigod.

It's also that Israel doesn't have the luxury of denial. But we do.

There's no need for accountability here, because (1) we're winning the war in Iraq; (2) we did all we could to stop the war in Lebanon asap; (3) Hezbollah was roundly defeated; (4) Lieberman's defeat is a victory for al Quaeda... and everyone on this blog can write 5,6,7, etc.

We live in our own fictitious universe. The question is, how much longer before reality bites our butt?

I would say that a lot of it is simply in the fact that there is, as Gore Vidal put it, only one political party in the United States. This political party has two factions, the Democrats and the Republicans.

To make the point less obscurely, Americans have the fewest range of opinions in their mainstream politics as any country outside of one party states.

Israel's political spectrum runs from socialists and pacifists, religious parties to military parties and hard right extremes.

This occasionally makes it difficult to govern, but at the same time, it exposes every policy and initiative to relentless scrutiny. It also means that failures, disasters and incompetence will be held accountable.

In Canada we've got a range that runs from socialists and environmentalists in the Green and NDP, to separatists, to conservatives.

Germany, France, Italy all have diverse political spectrums.

Meanwhile, the 'narrowest' in the west politically, outside the US is England, where Labour has largely emasculated its left wing in favour of a centre right position, and the conservatives sit as a rump, trying futilely for the same ideological ground.

In the United States, outside observers often see no discernible differences between Republicans and Democrats, and on many issues, there is a continuity of policy and viewpoint.

It doesn't mean that there aren't important differences between Republicans and Democrats. But they're small ones, and often matters of approach or timing in relation to issues of larger agreement.

For instance, both Democrats and Republicans agree that Iran's (nonexistent) nuclear weapons program is a threat to US security which may have to be dealt with by military intervention. The difference of opinion is with respect to technicalities of possible avenues of diplomatic resolution, the sincerity with which diplomatic channels will be pursued, etc.

In the United States there is a further limiting factor in that one party (or one faction of the one party if you will), the Republicans, control the Presidency, the House, the Senate, the Supreme Court and the Media. There is, therefore, no actual motivation for accountability, and a lot of incentive to sweep things under the rug.

So pleased you wrote this. Fact is though, we have no place lecturing the Israelis on how they resolve the fall-out from the latest battles.

We initiated (and botched) a pre-emptive war against Iraq. Our political leadership is STILL, three years later, evidently in denial about how profoundly we've screwed that up.

The fact Olmert took no more than a month to face up to his mistakes is something for which he should be applauded. His decision to accept a ceasefire has prevented a bad situation from getting worse. Now Israelis will openly challenge the Olmert government and the military leaders - please note, wingnuts, without having their patriotism called into doubt. It is a painful time for Israelis as they deal with dented national pride, but we should admire and respect the way their democracy works.

Apart from what we can learn from watching the Israelis, we'd also do well to note that in the foreign policy arena, Bushco's legacy is that America is a broken diplomatic force. Gerry Baker, the conservative UK Times columnist, called it today:

"Not only is the US despised around the globe, it can’t even make its supposed hegemony work."

Heck. Uv. A. Job.

mcrose68

That said, it strikes me that Olmert had the very real option of exerting pressure on the Lebanese parliament and public opinion by offering encouragement or help in bringing Hezbollah under control of the Lebanese State. From what I can tell Olmert did not make serious attempt help the Lebanese who should be a de-facto partner with Israel.

For that reason I believe that Olmert deserves every bit of criticism that can be thrown upon him.

Well, you're not entirely wrong.  But the trouble with this line of thought is that it does not consider that Lebanon does not recognize Israel, and thus the diplomatic channels with which Olmert may have pursued such a course simply do not exist.  Israel has recently tried to create a diplomatic relationship after Syria removed its troops from Lebanon, but the Lebanese government deferred to solidarity with the Arab League's overarching policy of diplomatic, economic and cultural isolation of Israel.

I'm not sure I accept this. It seems more like an excuse than an explanation.

Did Israel have no channels whatsoever to communicate with Lebanon? For instance, wouldn't or couldn't messages be related through the Egyptian, Jordanian, American or Turkish embassies? Couldn't Israel have made announcements or statements which would have been heard by Israel. Would a confidential diplomatic mission have been refused?

As for the Lebanese governments refusal of formal diplomatic relations... would this have had anything to do with a brutal 18 year occupation, including the siege of Beirut? The lack of reparations for the damage said occupation inflicted?

Could it have anything to do with Israel's intransigence on outstanding issues such as 400,000 live land mines, Shabaa farms, or Lebanese prisoners?

What sanctions or measures does Lebanon have to use against Israel to push or require progress on these fronts, except to withhold diplomatic recognition? Does Israel refuse to give ground on these issues? If so, why bother making the concession of diplomatic relations?

I believe that a group of Iraeli lawyers are preparing a lawsuit against Lebanon, to penalize it for Israel's costs and damages in thsi war. Will this enhance diplomatic relations?

Yeah,

Also I think there has been a big change in the last few years with the Republicans basically acting like a Parliamentary system much more than at any previous time in our history.

The way we had accountability was the seperation of powers, even if they were in the same party Congress and the Senate still operated at somewhat different purposes from each other and the President. In the past past even when a President had a majority from his own party he still had to negoiate with them; this lockstep lining up behind the President by his party in Congress is pretty much unique.

Valdron,

What sanctions or measures does Lebanon have to use against Israel to push or require progress on these fronts, except to withhold diplomatic recognition?

Fair enough.  And it's worked so well so far!

Correct! It's worked like crap!

Personally, if I was Beirut, I would have exchanged embassies, if for no other reason than to give local crowds something to throw rocks at.

But you'll acknowledge that its likely that Lebanon's refusal to enter into diplomatic relations with Israel has more to do with local history and issues rather than some vast Arab conspiracy?

What's Lebanon's motive for diplomatic relations? Make this concession and then have a warlike and aggressive state refuse to address its issues and continually make demands it comply with, backed by threats of things it will eventually do anyway? If I had a neighbor like that, I'd just put in earplugs. If Lebanon's perception that diplomatic relations are of advantage to Israel but not to itself it won't bother. And you can't bomb them into liking you.

Still, its not like the current arrangement is working for anyone.

Recently, in response to a challenge of yours, I sent a very long post outlining my thoughts as to how Israel could 'tame' Hezbollah and forge a lasting peace and a working relationship with Lebanon. And if it didn't work out, Israel would be left with much better intelligence as to how to take out Hezbollah far more efficiently. That thread vanished, which is a pity, I wish you could have read it.

The point of that post was that the course we were all on in the middle east was not fated, and that the cycle could be broken. You know how it is, its all fun and games when someone loses an eye.

By the time Prime Minister Ehud Barak unilaterally pulled out 18 years later (an act that seems less than strategically wise in retrospect), he had little choice.

Now this is an interesting statement.  Barak's pullout from Lebanon was "less than strategically wise"?  Why is that?  Could it possibly be that despite the slow bleed that Hezbollah was inflicitng on Israel in south Lebanon, that was preferable to letting them run free and dig in right across the border?

If that's true, why should we assume that it would be any different if Israel pulls out of the West Bank?  Isn't it almost guaranteed that the radicals will quickly dominate the new Palestinian state, the way they did Gaza?  Aren't they just as likely to take from the Lebanon war the lesson that Hezbollah taught them?  Aren't they likely to become pawns of Iran?

...the hapless Palestinians with their Kassams which, fired thousands of times, caused only a fraction of the damage inflicted by Hezbollah’s rockets.

Isn't that only because the area of Israel near the Gaza Strip is sparsely populated?  What happens when these harmless Kassams are fired in to Jerusalem or Tel Aviv, both within range of the border if Israel pulls out to the Green Line.

Many moderates reject the unilateral approach because they believe, and the Lebanon experience would have confirmed for them, that peace for Israel can only be achieved through negotiations and ironclad security guarantees.

Indeed.  But the peacenik left always skips right over the "ironclad security guarantee" part.  How is an ironclad guarantee even possible?  What would it look like? Who would enforce it? What are the consequences if it fails?  And so on.  They are right to dance around this issue because there are no good answers to any of these questions.  The peacenik position is bascially that Israel should withdraw and the security stuff will take care of itself.  Let's trust the Arabs to do what's right if their basic demands are met.

This is why the peacenik movement has withered to virtually nothing within Israel itself.  Even assuming the new Palestinian state wanted to enforce the security provisions, they would not be able to, just as the Lebanese government is not able to enforce security on its southern border.  Radical groups would simply ignore the government, the way Hezbollah does.  It's pretty simple: unless the Palestinians have the capacity to offer ironclad guarantees, the land-for-peace formula is inoperative. 

Great points, but as to:  The question is, how much longer before reality bites our butt?

 Reality has already bitten the butts of the maimed and dead soldiers, and thousands of family members; their numbers increasing day by day.  I've thought every 500 would be a tipping point, but I do believe that when as many young soldiers are dead as the number who died in the 911 attacks (which as we all KNOW have NOTHING to do with each other in truth-world, as opposed to Bush-world),

...well, I think that will push any Bush-supporter with a brain (?) or at least a conscience who is left, away from him.

Jan Knaus

Do any of you historians out there recall an American leader actually admitting he was wrong about something.

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yup. Ike and U2. And JFK with Bay of Pigs.

I disagree. I think that accountability provides a mitigating effect in that it prevents the continuance of unwise or inept policies.

Iraq/Lebanon is a perfect example. Both represent dramatically failed military experiments. Israel pulled out of Lebanon after 35 days. The United States committed to years of failure in Iraq and is bound and determined to continue to fail for years more.

Accountability, I would also argue, has a genuinely deterrent effect on many potentially reckless or foolish policy options. More accountability in the intelligence gathering might well have avoided the Iraq war altogether by negativing the wmd theory conclusively. (Hypothetical of course - the reality is that the wmd allegations were all a windy bag of obvious lies and fabrications knowingly peddled) (However, more accountability might have exploded these lies and left the invasion without support).

Finally, accountability is effective in maintaining minimum standards of competence. If, for instance, FEMA and Homeland Security had been subject to greater ongoing standards of accountability, New Orleans would be a different place today.

I must say that your thesis as to the principle effect of accountability being 'morale' building for opposition parties strikes me as so profoundly counterintuitive as to be bizarre and ... silly.

Do you have any study or analysis by any reputable party that would support your novel and quixotic notion.

So far as I understand, in both commercial, professional and military venues, accountability is one of the highest principles used to maintain and enforce both efficiency and standards.

Clinton in 1998 went to Rwanda and apologized for not acting. link

Have questions about the Cafe? Try here.

I heard Jimmy Carter list the things he would have done differently; most of them had to do with the Iranian hostage crisis. I can't recall all his words, but as usual they were thoughtful and honest.

Clinton said he would not have approved the Special Prosecuter -- ok that's about a scandal.

Other than those 2, I'm at a loss. I guess no one else ever realized he made a mistake!

Jan Knaus

Ahhh and so you did. I'll thank you for reading it through and not mocking it.

I'll add a couple of thoughts to it. First, the methods I outlined were not radically different from the sorts of things that the British did in India, which lead them by turns into control of the entire subcontinent.

I'm not suggesting that Israel start up the Lebanon East India Company or anything like that. But merely pointing out that these sorts of tactics have a long and distinguished history of success and have produced productive empires and productive relationships at low cost.

The second thing is that I think your insistence that the Arab states must come to Israel is a strategic mistake. It hands all the initiative and all the control over to the other side and makes you dependent upon their timing and their politics.

The British did not do it that way. If they'd simply waited for Indian Princes to come to them, they'd still be sitting in their little trading enclaves.

Israel has the power, and so Israel can have the initiative, and I think that it would be in Israel's interests to wield that initiative. At the very least, it gives an advantage in setting the terms of the discussion.

What's your alternative? Wait for some spontaneous moral and spiritual transformation to overcome both parties so that they'll simultaneously dash into each others arms in slow motion across a field of flowers to stirring music? When does that ever happen?

Israel is prepared to take the initiative in war, and has proven that it can think brilliantly and systematically in pursuit of war. So why can't Israel approach peace the same way?

Anwar Sadat had the courage to go to Jerusalem.

What Israeli leader has the courage to go to Damascus?

Is the peace movement withered away to virtually nothing within Israel?

This is news to me. Certainly certain elements in Israel appear to be quite willing to assassinate or do violence to those who believe in peace, as witness the assassination of Rabbin...

But withered away to virtually nothing?

Mr. Rosenberg, you seem to know something about Israeli politics. Could you comment on this?