Channels

Time to settle the bill

Nearly three months after the establishment of Olmert’s cabinet, Israel seeks a change that will bring a sense of revenge. Meanwhile, PM is zigzagging his way to state commission of inquiry

The most prominent finding in recent polls, besides the obvious increase in Benjamin Netanyahu’s popularity, is the disappointment. It appears that the public is deeply disappointed in its leadership, and is seeking other new-old avenues to invest in: Yes, it is once again looking for a strong leadership.

 

Just over three months after the establishment of the Olmert cabinet, Israel is looking for a change. What type of a change is not quite clear, as long as this cabinet goes and another comes in its stead, giving the public a sense that it has been avenged for its humiliation and lack of faith in the leadership it elected just three months ago.

 

Even without this week’s polls, it is obvious that the prime minister is in quite a predicament. Suffice it to look around to see how everything here is reversed: The north is bleeding, the public is turning its back on its leaders, the army is under attack, reserve soldiers are demonstrating outside the prime minister’s office and overall, there is a prevailing sense of no one to rely on - that everything is moving by sheer force of inertia.

 

The polls only strengthen the feeling and reflect the atmosphere on the street, on the cafes and in each of our living rooms. Every curse uttered by Israelis on seeing the images of their leaders on TV is translated in the polls, in the national state of mind. And it's pretty awful, thanks for asking.

  

Public memory is short

Public memory is short, and is inclined to become forgetful when it comes to politicians, regardless of whether they were the politicians ousted just a few years ago – the public tends to forget its mishaps. However, the real problem is that the public tends to forget the mishaps of politicians it didn't oust, those it happened to have liked.

 

The public, for example, will never hold Arik Sharon's mishaps against him; the fact that hundreds of Israelis were murdered in terror attacks because the prime minister was afraid to build a separation fence due to political reasons; the fact that hundreds of thousands of lives dropped below the poverty line; the fact that the army's emergency stocks emptied out during his term in office; that the Hizbullah armed itself to the teeth and Hamas assuredly rose to power in the Palestinian Authority.

 

No one remembers all this, or they choose not to. Sharon knew how to keep mum, swallow the polls whether good or bad, in exemplary silence. Sharon also knew how to swallow other things, to make them disappear, let them be forgotten - and the public actually liked this. He preferred not knowing, not asking, and now he's paying for it.

 

The failures of the second war in Lebanon are a direct outcome of public apathy which consumed anything positive since Sharon came to power: The unwritten agreement between Israelis and their prime minister was simple: Don't tell us, and we won't ask. Luckily for Sharon, this tactic worked.

 

Olmert, on the other hand, is zigzagging and folding, he is influenced by what's written in the press and what's posted on the Internet, he gets upset over TV broadcasts. This week, he zigzagged from absolute refusal to acceptance of a state commission of inquiry. Why? Because of a few hundred reserve soldiers who stood beneath his office window in Jerusalem.

 

Let there be no mistake: the problem is not in the justice of the protest, nor is it in the call for setting up a commission of inquiry. The problem lies with the politicians who are frightened by a few outcries, seeking solutions too late. Because if a committee of inquiry is to be established, Ehud Olmert should have said so from day one. If it is not necessary, then why on earth should he change his mind just because of a few protestors?

 

Back to apathy after a short protest

On Wednesday of last week I visited the Rose Garden in Jerusalem, where the reserve soldiers had set up their protest tent. Attendance was meager, really meager.

 

Motti Ashkenazi, who brought hundreds of thousands to the streets in 1973, and the novelist Eyal Megged, came to show their support. Ashkenazi said the media is playing a central role in the protest. Megged suggested turning it into a political protest. I asked the protest organizers, the young men who had just returned from the war in Lebanon, where was the massive protest?

 

The answers came in slogans: The public is supportive, we are surprised at the level of support, there's a strengthening of the protest etc. But throughout the two hours I spent there, nothing changed, except for the voices of protest by a few daydreamers who said something about greater Israel - there wasn't really a great surge of supporters.

 

After a few days of rage in the press and on TV, Israelis will resume their status of apathy - a condition they have become accustomed to. It's apathy to the goings on around them. Now they'll expect the press and the TV to do the work for them. They are prepared to go out and demonstrate. But it's too hot. Motti Ashkenazi was right.

 

The public is fortunate that its leadership is weak right now; waivering at the faintest breeze. One day they are in favor, the next they are not, and the third day brings whatever it brings. Therefore, although thousands didn't flock to Rabin Square in protest of the war, Ehud Olmert folded; he hinted that he would consider a committee of inquiry.

 

Whether it is established or not, his zigzagging presents the prime minister as someone who doesn't necessarily know what the next step is. He is giving the impression that he is likely to be influenced by newspaper articles and banners under his office window.

 

This week Olmert appeared as though he has no agenda, neither political nor public. In one area, however, the prime minister does have an agenda: the area called Ehud Olmert.

 

Therefore, it is doubtful whether he will rush to strengthen his cabinet with people such as Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu. Bringing them back into the cabinet will be viewed as public admission that he failed, that he is incapable, that he needs help. Can anyone possibly imagine Olmert saying such things?

 

It's worth noting…

Realignment plan: Some of the media outlets rushed to announce this week that Olmert's realignment plan is dead. Olmert was quoted as saying to several Kadima ministers that reality had changed, that there are other national priorities at hand.

 

Three weeks ago, sources close to Olmert were quoted as saying that as of now the plan is on hold and that efforts are currently being concentrated on rehabilitation of the north. So far so good.

 

As of now it appears that realignment has been pushed into a corner, but to say that it has been entirely taken off the agenda would be making a mistake. The Olmert administration doesn't have a political agenda; therefore, as time goes by, when rehabilitation of the north in no longer a media item, the political questions will resurface.

 

Only then will the realignment plan come to the forefront, and the public debate around  Israel's policy in the territories will be ignited. Unless the Palestinians are planning to disappear.

 


פרסום ראשון: 08.27.06, 15:32
 new comment
Warning:
This will delete your current comment