Responsibility is not blame.

Nowadays, people take responsibility for themselves in order to receive applause for taking responsibility. Like those who publish petitions of some kind and then their entire milieu applauds them as one man with one heart for their extraordinary courage. Ehud Barak (whom I support), in a moment of charlatanism, was once asked in an interview about his responsibility for the Tse'elim disaster and replied, "I am responsible. Unequivocally! I am responsible for everything that happens in the army." In doing so, of course, he emptied all of his responsibility of any meaning.

But why do you write that the meaning of his words depends on actions such as resigning or leading a major investigation process (as Dan Halutz writes in his book that he did in the IDF after the Second Lebanon War, in the best tradition of the Air Force's investigation. What came of it? It is unclear). A person cannot determine "I am responsible" for failure just as he cannot determine that he is responsible for success. And whether he takes action or not, what does it matter at all. Ostensibly, it should come from the outside in a credible way and find the person who is truly responsible. The idea that people come forward and confess to themselves seems to me to be rather harmful. His opinion is the opinion of every person and he has no advantage in this matter. Therefore, the considerations that motivate him are public (what the public expects of him and what the public will tolerate) and not really his beating heart forcing him by virtue of the sanctity of the sense of duty and justice. And what is there to be interested in the beating of his heart?

[By the way, this metaphysics of guilt/responsibility seems to me completely empty and unnecessary. The consequences that can be deduced even without it (i.e. not because of the past but for the sake of the future) should be deduced, for example, imposing a fine on the negligent driver who caused the accident in order to incentivize drivers not to be negligent, and what cannot be deduced without this metaphysics is recommended to simply be deleted. But that's just me spouting off from the law, don't be disgusted and it's irrelevant]

Disagree. Paying an at-fault driver is not a punishment but compensation. Therefore, it is not done to prevent future negligence but because of responsibility for what happened.
The statements about responsibility are about informing the public that they recognize their responsibility and that they will do their part to correct the wrong. I do not see this as a problem, as long as it is honest and true.

In my opinion, leaving one's own money with a person is for the future, not because of the past.

Resigning as an act of taking responsibility is simply a joke and a lie. A person who is responsible for an omission should fix it, not run away (to the sound of public applause) and leave his mess to someone else.

If a person recognizes that he does not have the ability to fix it, then he should really say so and resign. But this is not taking responsibility, but an acknowledgement that he does not have the ability to take responsibility (which is also something. It is certainly better than staying and not fixing it).

My father, in a private company I think that if a CEO is responsible for a failure, then they will usually fire him – out of anger, out of the thought that he has been proven to be defective and not successful enough, and to make it clear to future CEOs what is expected of them. With elected officials (and sometimes indirectly with public officials) you only come to terms with them at the ballot box and that is once every few years (…) and together with an entire list. Therefore, firings (much better than resignation!), are the whip that is wielded at the top and is supposed to spur him to permeate the demands all the way down. Just like the salary and status that are showered on the top to incentivize him

Tolginus, indeed this also happens in commercial companies, although less often: from what I've come to know, CEOs are usually ousted when the failures are attributed to their own bad decisions (then there is blame and not just responsibility), or when the board of directors gets the impression that the CEO simply lacks the skills to get the company out of the mud. And when that's not the case, they're really wrong.

The behavior you see in public is more similar to what happens in football (the team lost twice, so the coach was fired), not to what happens in the business world. People get grilled for no real reason and the public loses good people, forcing them to play the media game instead of working.