Clearly he has a point with his "get over it" message to Israelis. Given that he defines security in terms of releasing terrorists who sign abstinence pledges, think of the overcrowding in Palestinian 12-step programs alone that would ensue if all were let go at once:
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Thursday that he had no intention of providing maximal protection to all residents of Gaza periphery communities. "A country cannot protect itself ad infinitum, because there would be no end to it."
Olmert was addressing the Caesarea Conference.
The prime minister added that stepping up protection would be "just as [ineffective] as the demand to solve Sderot's Kassam problem by wiping Beit Hanun and other towns in Gaza off the face of the earth.
Nice straw man argument. Well, since we can't "wipe them off the face of the earth," let's release them from our prisons, and pretend we aren't paying the salaries of thousands of terrorists via Abbas. Hamas solved its Fatah problem permanently (and probably the dreaded armed clan threat as well) in Gaza with probably less than 100 deaths.
The prime minister appealed to the residents of the Gaza periphery: "In the short term we cannot supply you with all of the personal security that we would like to provide, because such protection would draw from expensive resources that are needed for other critical security needs."
Olmert also addressed the media, asking that they "not encourage, even mutely, demands of citizens that no normal government could accept." He added that "life in Israel entails a certain security risk, and anyone who chooses to live in the Jewish state is accepting this risk." And yet, "the risk in Israel is lower than the risk threatening Jews in other parts of the world."
To address the stupidity in order that it was mentioned:
1) Yes, a country can't provide infinite protection, but that is different from not even trying, which is currently the case around Gaza.
2) Why on earth would it be "ineffective" to wipe parts of Gaza off the map? Everyone agrees this would be effective. The argument over this action is whether it would be moral or we could get away with it, not whether it would work. How could it not?
3) Protecting people from missiles would draw money from other critical security needs? What is more critical than protecting our citizens from rockets right now?
4) Life in Israel does entail some risk, but that obviously doesn't mean the government is allowed to ignore its responsibilities to reduce that risk, especially when its own actions brought about the risk in the first place.
Thank you--one of my goals is to bring examples of concentrated stupidity to save the time of having to look through all its diffuse manifestations.
It isn't stupidity, though, even according to your own cogent argument. It's Leftist thinking, which rejects the obvious notion that the top priority of a state is the protection of its citizens. It isn't just Israel--all welfare states are so paralyzed by the gridlock of trying to pay for goodies for interest groups that they have little left for basic security.
The problem here is not a lack of money. There is plenty of money to slush to Abbas, for example. It is a lack of interest in fixing the problem, which is somewhat related to what you are saying.
Here the lack of interest is quite peculiar though; the rockets on Sderot prove the Gaza withdrawal, which was sponsored by most of those in power now, was a mistake. Why not at least try to cover up for the mistake by providing protective rooves for schools in Sderot? That would cost relatively little and, while it wouldn't help much, it would at least show "progress". Even that is too much for Olmert to commmit to. Why?
You make a good point. With protective roofs, deaths would be converted to injuries, and the local media reportage would be reduced.
Your other point is good as well. There is $400 million to be given to Abbas, but that is "off the top" money, which is the funds skimmed off by those with protexia. Then the interest groups battle over the rest. This drives out many of self-sufficient people and companies, leaving Yertle the Turtle king of the mud).
As I read this article which is blowing my mind, I ask "where are Israel's leaders and "where is the IDF in all of this". I would not in a thousand years call for a coup of the government by the above; however, now would be a good time to consider this action. Olmert's criminal actions and comments should be enough to justify an action to remove him, by force if neccesary.
How can anyone state that the city of Sderot can't have protection? A single citizen in Israel should have that protection. As an ex military soldier, I would invade Gaza with a force that would destroy the Hamas regime at the roots. If one would hit me with a swich, I would clobber him with a baseball bat.