By Daniel Rosen, JNS
It’s time that former Israeli leaders realize that their words are not exclusively for domestic consumption.
Something odd is happening to a select number of Israel’s former leaders after they leave power. Some seem to lose all sense of proportion—and, in some cases, their actual grip on reality.
Take Ehud Olmert, for example. Once a respected prime minister and the mayor of Jerusalem, he compared a proposed “humanitarian city” for displaced Palestinian Arabs in the Gaza Strip to a German Nazi concentration camp. By doing so, he plays right into the hands of those who aim to compare Israelis to Nazis.
To quote him directly, in an interview with The Guardian, he writes: “When they build a camp where they [plan to] ‘clean’ more than half of Gaza, then the inevitable understanding … is not to save [Palestinians]. It is to deport them.” He added that it would be “an expression of a concentration camp.”
Does he not realize the damage he is doing? To compare this tent city to a concentration camp is not only grotesquely false but profoundly offensive. It cheapens the singular historical evil of the Holocaust and plays straight into the hands of Israel’s fiercest critics, who constantly look for ways to accuse the Jewish state of Nazi-like behavior.
Unfortunately, Olmert is not alone. So what’s going on with some of these former generals and prime ministers? Why are they saying such wild things?
Yair Golan, a former deputy chief of staff of the Israel Defense Forces, who now leads a small left-wing party called “The Democrats,” claimed on Kan News radio: “A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies as a hobby … .” Huh? Does he believe that, or is he cynically playing politics without realizing the implications of his words. Is he such a fool and doesn’t realize that that kind of rhetoric doesn’t stay in Israel. It ends up on posters at anti-Israel rallies in London, New York and university campuses worldwide.
Former Defense Minister Moshe (“Boogie”) Ya’alon has also lashed out at the IDF’s strategy in Gaza and implied that the army was engaging in a type of ethnic cleansing. Ehud Barak went even further—years ago warning that if Israel didn’t find a two-state solution, then it would become “an apartheid state.” That line is now one of the central talking points of those who falsely claim Israel is practicing apartheid.
What unites all of these men? They were once considered measured, competent leaders. They commanded armies, led governments, made real decisions under pressure. And yet, once out of power, they seem to embrace extreme rhetoric.
I don’t believe Olmert is evil. I don’t even think that he’s a fool. Which is why his latest comments are so perplexing. He hasn’t become a villain, but maybe he has gone mad.
It’s as if once the weight of leadership is gone, some of our former leaders become intoxicated by the applause of international media and anti-government circles. Or maybe they just want relevance back. Either way, their words now do real harm.
Building a protected civilian area in Gaza is not the same as herding people into Nazi death camps. And saying so isn’t brave; it’s disgraceful.
The plan for a “humanitarian zone” in Gaza can be scrutinized but do it without invoking the Holocaust. Don’t throw around terms like “concentration camp” when talking about a proposal to shield civilians from Hamas and IDF crossfire. That’s not them being fair to the conversation, that’s recklessness, arrogance and shortsightedness.
The only “cleansing” going on is the attempt to separate Hamas terrorists from innocent civilians. And if the endgame includes giving some Gazans the choice to resettle in other Arab countries or elsewhere? That’s not genocide, that’s diplomacy. That’s regional problem-solving.
It’s time these former leaders get a grip and realize that their words are not exclusively for consumption in Israel. They have far-reaching consequences way beyond domestic political considerations. They must practice restraint, even if they no longer carry the burden of office.
If they can’t tell the difference between saving lives and mass murder, then yes—maybe they’ve truly lost their marbles.
