Featured Post
Free The Hostages! Bring Them Home!
(this is a featured post and will stay at the top for the foreseeable future.. scroll down for new posts) -------------------------------...
Mar 13, 2019
Olmert as the moral authority
I find it interesting how much of a platform the media has given former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. The guy sat in prison for bribery and corruption, yet every day or two the media is asking him his opinion on the state of the country and the upcoming elections.
And now he has the gall to talk about how corrupt PM Benjamin Netanyahu is and that all he talks about is words of incitement against anybody not with him.
Commenting on Netanyahu's style of incitement is not so bad. It happens to be true, and while some may not like his style, that is not corruption or illegal. Olmert commenting on how corrupt Netanyahu is and how he stole from the people is the problem - who made Olmert the moral authority? What gives Ehud Olmert any moral standing to complain about Netanyahu's corruption.
As the Rambam said, one must accept the truth from whatever the source - Olmert might be speaking truth, and Netanyahu is under investigation for all those things and if found guilty will pay for his crimes. My question is why is Olmert being given a platform and he himself should not be acting like a moral authority.
And now he has the gall to talk about how corrupt PM Benjamin Netanyahu is and that all he talks about is words of incitement against anybody not with him.
Commenting on Netanyahu's style of incitement is not so bad. It happens to be true, and while some may not like his style, that is not corruption or illegal. Olmert commenting on how corrupt Netanyahu is and how he stole from the people is the problem - who made Olmert the moral authority? What gives Ehud Olmert any moral standing to complain about Netanyahu's corruption.
As the Rambam said, one must accept the truth from whatever the source - Olmert might be speaking truth, and Netanyahu is under investigation for all those things and if found guilty will pay for his crimes. My question is why is Olmert being given a platform and he himself should not be acting like a moral authority.
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Related Posts
Normally I would agree with you. Olmert is a washed out politician whose opinions became irrelevant before he was removed from office. In this particular case he has a unique insight from experience as to what Bibi is going through. The fact that he can't recognize the contradiction is a separate issue.
ReplyDeleteFacing the Holyland scandal Kadima chose to remove Olmert as head of the party. Even after he was removed, he refused to step down as PM. A move that eventually forced elections to be called. Even after elections were called, Olmert still felt that he was entitled to negotiate and sign off on a permanent agreement with the Palestinian Authority.
Bibi is also facing serious corruption charges against him. One could argue that Case 4000 (Bezeq) affects every single Israeli with an internet connection, while Holyland affected a far more limited amount of people.
Not only is Bibi proceeding as if nothing is wrong, he is intentionally hurting his party on behalf of the greater good (for him). The French Law and other legislation to keep him from facing justice is still on the table. Bibi held the Defence Ministry for Liberman so that he could take the time to clear his name. Bibi called on Olmert to resign over the Holyland scandal. It seems to me that Olmert and Bibi have a lot in common on this particular topic.
I dont disagree that Netanyahu should resign. I think he should, a she himself called on Olmert to do, and I have said so.
DeleteI just dont think Olmert should be talking like a moral authority and the media should not be giving him such a platform
I can see them asking him that particular question. I can understand why if they took the time to ask him, they would want to get use out of the work he did. He should not be talking like a moral authority, but that hasn't changed since he was in office. There is a difference between asking him once for his insight into the scandal, rather than treating him as a regular political pundit.
Delete