Another POV on my prediction that Ehud Olmert will lose the prime minister’s office, to be succeeded by Likud politico Binyamin Netanyahu. Some Israeli voices who wish Olmert to leave are far from sure it can happen and say that Netanyahu is weaker politically than we give him credit for in the US. (I remember reading some time ago that BN is more popular in America than in Israel.)

The Jerusalem Post editorializes, “The countdown for Olmert has begun.”

[E]ven if you accept the government’s claims that it’s good for Israel, there is no way that it can be good for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. …

Now the feeling is that while the public was prepared to grin and bear it, it was the politicians, especially Olmert, who weren’t able to go the extra mile. The cabinet’s decision on Wednesday to extend the operation by at least two more weeks and to make an all-out push for the Litani, with the evident casualties that would be part and parcel, was supported, according to all the opinion polls, by a wide majority. But the order to halt the troops pending a diplomatic solution in New York was already too much for an overpatient public.

Why did Olmert and his ministers falter at the last minute? Was he unable to withstand international pressure at the critical moment? Was the scepter of lengthening casualty lists too much for him?

The answer to these questions will probably be stuff for historians, but now many Israelis, including those who sat for a month in stifling bomb shelters, reservists who dropped everything and reported to their units and the families who anxiously awaited a telephone from their sons in Lebanon and dreaded the knock of the local IDF liaison are feeling that their sacrifice has been betrayed.

After years of dismissing the UN as an ineffectual and anti-Israel organization, how can Israelis believe that of all the possibilities, it will be the one to make sure that Hizbullah never again threatens our northern towns and villages.

Regarding Olmert’s and Natanyahu’s political futures,

Anyone who observed [Olmert’s] nine years as mayor of Jerusalem knows that he is quite comfortable swatting away public criticism and a hostile press. He will pay no heed to those in the media who began calling for his resignation over the weekend, and he is more than willing to take on his political rivals.

Meanwhile, his coalition seems stable. All the parties’ leaders were partners to the war decisions and they will find it hard to jump ship. It’s also difficult to see who can mount a real opposition to Olmert. The Left is still powerless, with scant public support. On the Right, Binyamin Netanyahu has yet to regain his credibility, almost totally destroyed in the last election.

Of course Netanyahu has acted as an admirable spokesman for Israel, giving the government his unstinting support throughout the crisis, but his efforts were mainly targeted at the foreign audience and it has yet to be seen whether that will be enough to reduce the deeply-held suspicion held toward him in what was formerly the Likud electoral heartland. He would be wise not to pounce too quickly and open himself to accusations of political opportunism at the expense of our soldiers. Right now, he seems to prefer a wiser, long-range strategy, and if he manages to enlist former chief of General Staff Moshe Ya’alon, he will start on the long road to political recovery.

Meanwhile, it’s hard to see where Olmert goes from here. Save for a dramatic military operation, perhaps a well-deserved attack on the Iranian nuclear project, he has no way to regain his lost credibility.

American two-party politics is a model of simplicity and transparency compared to most any parliamentary system.

Israel’s Haaretz newspaper offers a, “Postwar self test: Are you an anti-Semite?” Two of the 10 questions:

One of the more fruitless debates between critics and supporters of Israel, is where to draw the line between candid criticism of Israeli policy, and anti-Semitism.

As a public service, we present the following post war self-test, to assist readers in placing themselves along the continuum which stretches from taking rational issue with Israeli policy, and ends in Jew-hate. …

2. You are handsome, famous and inebriated when you are stopped driving in Malibu, California by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept. Suspecting the arresting officer of Judaism, you consider informing him that “The Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world.”

You would take this course of action:

A. Over your dead body.
B Only after 6-8 drinks.
C Cold sober.

_______

3. You are CNN. When Lebanese civilians are killed, injured or rendered homeless in Israeli air strikes, you identify the victims as Lebanese civilians and elaborate on their suffering. When Israeli civilians are killed in Hezbollah rocket attacks, you should:

A. Identify them as Israeli civilians and elaborate on their suffering.
B. Identify them as Israelis, thus calling into question whether they are civilians.
C. Omit them, and elaborate on the suffering of Lebanese civilians.

Then we have a certain Lebanese perspective:

Translation: “Smile son, or they might think we are anti-Semitic”.

Translation provided by my distant relative, Todd Sensing.

Anti-Semitism is one thing, and to be condemned wherever found, but are some Israelis guilty of anti-Christianity? Consider the recent experience of the bishop of the Diocese of Jerusalem:

I was scheduled to leave Tel Aviv on Swiss Air flight number 255D at 15:55 this afternoon [Aug. 7 - DS]. I proceeded as usual to the baggage and security clearance area. After asking me both relevant and non-relevant security questions, the young woman security officer concluded by questioning why I did not have an Israeli visa even though I was carrying an Israeli passport!!

Then she let me put my bags on the conveyor belt so that they could be screened, after decorating both bags and my passport with blue and green stickers. Then I saw her rushing to a supervisor who ordered the belt stopped. Approaching me he asked, “English or Hebrew?” I responded, “Please, Arabic”. Arabic is one of two official languages of the State of Israel and I knew that it was my right in this “oasis of democracy” to make that official request.

Because I refused to speak other than Arabic, because I informed them that I am an Arab-Palestinian-Christian, and because down deep I knew that their behavior was designed to humiliate me, I insisted in conversing with them in the language I master which is Arabic, my mother tongue. At that point, Tal Vardi, the Security Duty Manager also showed up and insisted on speaking in any language other than Arabic. I refused. An Arab from Nazareth who happened to be present offered to translate when Mr. Vardi turned his back and turned toward me only to say, “You will not fly today!”

I called Mr. Caesar Marjieh, Director of the Department for Christian Communities who tried his best to assist me, but he did not succeed. I waited two hours thinking that someone with enough courtesy and good judgment would come, but to no avail. I had no alternative but to return to Jerusalem and inform my friends who were expecting me in Geneva today and London tomorrow of the situation. Later in the week I will file a suit in the High Court against the Security Duty Manager and his staff for violating my civil rights without cause.

My indignation is not for me, but it is for all people in occupied territories who face this kind of oppression and humiliation every day of their lives. This happened to an Anglican Bishop with special identification given him by the Department of the Interior and the Ministry of Religious Affairs. What do you imagine happens to others?

And that is an excellent question.

On a short session of discussion hosted by Chris Wallace on FNC just now there was a consensus among the panelists that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s days in office are likely numbered. Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer and Juan Williams were pretty clear about it; NPR’s Elizabeth Shogren thought it was quite likely. Juan added that Benjamin Netanyahu and the Likud party will be much strengthened by the Olmert government’s sloppy handling of the war and its unsatisfactory ending of it.

Now, I don’t think it took rocket-science smarts to have figured that out, but you heard it here first.

I also said that Defense Minister Amir Peretz will actually come out in better political shape than the rest of the Olmert government. I even said that Peretz will be a future PM (deliberately dodging how much into the future). To be fair, Peretz has come under some intense criticism in Israel as the top of the military department. Also, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is being sharply criticized for not pressing (in critics’ minds) Israel’s case strong enough to the UN.

Crystal ball on:

Ehud Olmert’s days are numbered as prime minister. The slapdash, haphazard and wholly indecisive way he has handled the Hezbollah war has doomed his chances of remaining in office past the end of this year, probably before then and maybe very soon. Olmert entered office with no national-security credentials and clearly still has none. Israeli editorialists all around are already calling for him to go.

National security will replace the economy as the number one issue for Israeli voters. (Well, it already has.) Actually, the two issues are joined at the hip for Israel. The rocket threat in the north badly affected the economy there before the war. Now, with Hezbollah able to range south of Haifa, the potential economic effects are vastly greater.

Israel has lost billions of dollars in revenue from all sources because of the war. Israeli voters will quickly conclude that they cannot vote for guns or butter, they can only vote for both or neither.

Benjamin Natanyahu will succeed Olmert as prime minister.

Look for Amir Peretz’s star to rise, though. He became defense minister with no security credentials, either. Yet Israeli media have reported for several days that he was pushing PM Olmert hard for a sweeping ground offensive that Olmert kept refusing. With authentic left-of-center political credentials already firmly established, Peretz will be seen postwar as a social liberal and security hawk, a politician’s kingpin seat before the Israeli electorate. Peretz will become a future PM.

Crystal ball off.

Well, you can’t accuse me of being ambiguous.

Update: The opposition Likud party has already promised, “”We will work to bring down the government.” Israeli military officers cited at the link are being quite public about their dissatisfaction with Olmert.

What led Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to reject the ceasefire deal being brokered by France, Lebanon and the United States? Unquestionably, he wanted a ceasefire resolution of some kind and until today seemed willing even to embrace one with terms so unfavorable to Israel as was being proposed for a vote in New York this afternoon.

Before the PM’s rejection of the deal’s terms this morning, Haaretz editorialized what acceptance of the deal would have meant for Olmert:

Olmert cannot remain in the prime minister’s office

By Ari Shavit

Ehud Olmert may decide to accept the French proposal for a cease-fire and unconditional surrender to Hezbollah. That is his privilege. Olmert is a prime minister whom journalists invented, journalists protected, and whose rule journalists preserved. Now the journalists are saying run away. That’s legitimate. Unwise, but legitimate.

However, one thing should be clear: If Olmert runs away now from the war he initiated, he will not be able to remain prime minister for even one more day. Chutzpah has its limits. You cannot lead an entire nation to war promising victory, produce humiliating defeat and remain in power. You cannot bury 120 Israelis in cemeteries, keep a million Israelis in shelters for a month, wear down deterrent power, bring the next war very close, and then say - oops, I made a mistake. That was not the intention. Pass me a cigar, please.

There is no mistake Ehud Olmert did not make this past month. He went to war hastily, without properly gauging the outcome. He blindly followed the military without asking the necessary questions. He mistakenly gambled on air operations, was strangely late with the ground operation, and failed to implement the army’s original plan, much more daring and sophisticated than that which was implemented. And after arrogantly and hastily bursting into war, Olmert managed it hesitantly, unfocused and limp. He neglected the home front and abandoned the residents of the north. He also failed shamefully on the diplomatic front.

Still, if Olmert had come to his senses as Golda Meir did during the Yom Kippur War, if he had become a leader, established a war cabinet and called the nation to a supreme effort that would change the face of the battle, a penetrating discussion of his failures could be postponed. But in blinking first over the past 24 hours, he has become an incorrigible political personality. Therefore, the day Nasrallah comes out of his bunker and declares victory to the whole world, Olmert must not be in the prime minister’s office. Post-war battered and bleeding Israel needs a new start and a new leader. It needs a real prime minister.

My prediction: Olmert will lose his office, anyway.