Winograd panel member hints PM shouldn't quit despite damning report By Yuval Yoaz, Haaretz Correspondent Last update - 08:54 06/02/2008 www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/951762.html

A member of the Winograd war probe committee, Prof. Yehezkel Dror, hinted in
an interview on Wednesday that he felt that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert
should remain in office despite the committee's damning report on the
government's conduct during the Second Lebanon War.

The Winograd report, released last Wednesday, attributed "grave faults" to
the government and the military in the decision making process during the
war. However, Dror told Ma'ariv on Wednesday, "if we think that the prime
minister will advance the peace process [with the Palestinians], it is a
serious consideration. The peace process, if successful, will save so many
lives as to give it considerable weight. It is not right to look only at one
side [of the issues]."

Since the release of the report, many have called upon the prime minister to
take responsibility for the mistakes his government made during the war and
resign. When asked whether he felt Olmert should step down, Dror said "we
must think of the consequences. What do you prefer? A government led by
Olmert and [Defense Minister Ehud] Barak or new elections that will give
rise to a government led by [opposition leader and Likud Chairman Benjamin]
Netanyahu."

On Tuesday, Dror spoke at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, and
charged that there had been "numerous distortions" in the way the media
presented the Winograd report.

"The issues that the media chose to focus on after the final report was
published last week do not serve the need to improve Israel's ability to
cope with the serious diplomatic and security challenges it faces and will
face. Anyone who wants to understand Israel's problems must read the full
report, especially because of the numerous distortions in its presentation
by the media," Dror said.

Dror also warned that "Israel's future depends to a great extent on the
nature of its government, and the present situation is far from meeting the
minimum [standard] required." He therefore advocated changing the system of
government to a "quasi-presidential" one, saying such a system would be
better suited to "making decisions on critical but deeply controversial
political issues."

In addition, he said, it is vital to "change the political culture and the
quality of people engaged in politics."