All the questions on the management fiasco that has brought the Hadassah Medical Organization to the brink of collapse have been asked. All I am left with now is my astonishment at how former Hadassah Director-General Professor Shlomo Mor-Yosef could just take his golden parachute, leave Hadassah financially hemorrhaging, and still claim he was an outstanding manager. Not everyone could do that with a straight face. I cannot explain what seems to be a profound lack of humility. All I can say is that many directors, mayors and ministers have grown accustomed to thinking that flouting budget guidelines and running endless deficits is something they would never have to be held accountable for. This is the essence of anarchy, and the public has been made to pay for it time and again. There is now a generation of boundless executives in Israel and Mor-Yosef positioned himself as their leader. The problem evident from the Hadassah crisis goes beyond the bottomless financial pit and ventures into the public's helplessness. There is no one from whom to demand compensation. This predicament has had the Movement for Quality Government in Israel come out with a plan that would deny Mor-Yosef any perks from his former employer. The generous severance package he was given may be legally binding and any amendments to that agreement might not hold up in court. Just when is it acceptable to abrogate an agreement? Every Western legal system has to grapple with such issues. When former Finance Minister Yuval Steinitz tried, justifiably, to increase the royalties on off-shore gas production, he had to get the licensee, Yitzhak Tshuva, to agree. He also had to cite the recommendations of the government-appointed Sheshinski Committee and the plan it devised. But would the court have approved a unilateral royalty hike? It's unclear. Despite this uncertainty, this route deserves a shot, not because Mor-Yosef's outrageous compensation could save Hadassah. No, relatively speaking, his benefits are just a drop in the bucket when it comes to the recovery efforts for this cash-strapped medical center. But the public wants justice to be served, even if that means taking baby steps. The public wants to know that the world does not run according to the maxim "might makes right," that there are some things are that are just not done. A victim of false propaganda European Parliament President Martin Schulz's speech before the Knesset plenum was unbecoming for someone who had just received an honorary Ph.D. from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The provocative reaction on the part of Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett and his colleagues attest to their ignorance. Have they forgot that important Talmudic teaching: "Good hospitality trumps the divine presence of God [Shekhinah]." The 59-year-old Schulz has had a balanced approach toward Israel. He has opposed a boycott; he wants continued scientific cooperation. It doesn't get much fairer than that in the European Union. That said, he erred in his recent comments, which were based on the false data that Israel was all but carrying out atrocities by denying water to the Palestinians. This evoked terrible imagery, because water has come to represent the source of life, and thirst is a harbinger of approaching death. According to a fascinating rabbinical tale, when the angels asked God why he gave Ishmael water even though his descendants would go on to massacre the Israelites, God told them that Ishmael had yet to commit a sin and that he deserved relief. After all, he was stranded in the desert. Rather than share this Jewish ethos with Schulz, Habayit Hayehudi just stormed out of the plenum. This incident did not just result in Habayit Hayehudi and Meretz trading barbs (somehow, the left-wing party always finds itself on the side that justifies anti-Israel malice). Schulz did not seek confrontation; he did not try to stage a provocation. But he accepted the information he was fed as if it was an axiom, as if no proof was needed. This is because decent Europeans keep falling prey to the influence of pro-Palestinian and anti-Semitic groups and their propaganda. No one is there to set the record straight. Who is in favor of bringing back the refugees- When Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's book "My Truth" came out 10 years ago, I said his preferred peace deal was far-fetched. But his book offered a clear and unique path toward implementing the Right's vision. Recently, after Lieberman started backtracking on his positions -- as part of his efforts to court U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry -- I opened the book again. I realized that despite his new rhetoric, this was still consistent with the comprehensive plan he outlined in the book. Only one other figure on the right authored a noteworthy book since: Defense Minister Moshe (Bogie) Ya'alon, who wrote "The Long Short Road." Some of Lieberman's ideas are no longer valid. At one point he suggested the Palestinians should be allowed to have small canton-like enclaves that could, if certain conditions were met, comprise a full-fledged state. Such a proposal is impractical now as it was unfeasible back then. What's interesting is that he was willing to let the descendants of the 1948 refugees resettle in those cantons as long as Israel did not have to foot the bill. "My Truth" is worth reading. Not because you would agree with it, but because you would see where Lieberman is coming from.
