Commentary of the Week

Breaking bones for Kadima victory?
                

There is no denying the logic behind the advice that acting prime minister Ehud Olmert's campaign advisors no doubt gave him to mark the formal opening of the Kadima Party's election campaign by breaking the bones of protesters at Amona.

After all, overnight polling certainly would have shown that many potential Kadima voters were disappointed with the outcome in the Hebron market affair - with the Jews evacuating on their own volition as part of an understanding (confirmed by the IDF and denied by AG Mazuz) that other Jews can be expected to replace them in the buildings in a month or two.

Heavily covered bone breaking no-nonsense "law enforcement" at Amona more than makes up for Hebron.  Accepting the Yesha Council's proposal that they themselves would either re-locate or demolish the buildings within two weeks would have meant much more than a lost photo-op:  it could have meant a drop of several percentage points in the polls for Kadima. And to make matters worse for the Kadima campaign team, accepting the Yesha Council's proposal would have given the Yesha Council more credibility in the eyes of the protesters - thus increasing the possibility that they would be also able to successfully broker other evacuations - thus denying the Kadima campaign team the bone breaking law enforcement imagery they sought not only at Amona but at the other locations slated for action before the elections.

The numbers definitely favored confrontation over peaceful resolution. But with Kadima enjoying a huge lead in the polls was it really necessary for Mr. Olmert to put his campaign's interests ahead of those of the nation? Is it really so critical that Kadima polls 43 seats instead of 39?

Perhaps Mr. Olmert's campaign advisors can't be faulted for wanting to maximize Kadima's victory at the polls at any cost, but that doesn't excuse Ehud Olmert for accepting their advice.
 

____________________________________________________

Commentary of the Last Week: Will Olmert's move against settlers quash the retreat debate?

Whether they planned it all along or simply stumbled into it, the Olmert teams' decision to try and carry out a series of high profile assaults against settlers over the course of the period leading to election day is sheer genius. Olmert's team didn't have to poll much to find that many of Kadima's potential supporters from the Left and Left-Center would like nothing more than to see settlers "put in their place" with the television screens filled with images of Jews being dragged from their homes in various outposts and elsewhere in the West Bank. It's a win-win situation for Olmert: if a massive show of force causes the settlers to leave passively it's a victory - and if security forces have to break bones - or worse - to show whose boss - that's also a vote getter.

Olmert's team, with the cooperation of the media, can market these "victories" over the settlers as proof of his ability to handle Israel's security challenges despite his lack of prior experience. To their credit, the advisors behind the Kadima Party have already anticipated the negative impact that pre-election terror attacks could have on Olmert's image.  With the help of COS Halutz and others, the bloody second Intifada period has been set as the benchmark for terror, so even if literally hundreds are murdered in terror attacks before election day it can be claimed that terror is down.

But should the ability to uproot settlers from their homes be the defining qualification for candidates in the upcoming elections?

It might be if uprooting some settlers was the only thing holding up the implementation of a popular final status agreement that had already passed the confirmation process - or if retreat was a foregone conclusion. But no one seriously claims an agreement is even close to being reached - and that's with or without Israel standing its ground on requiring the PA to actually disarm the terrorists before the talks start.  That's disarm - not simply put on the PA security forces payroll. As for retreat: it isn't a foregone conclusion - it's the true issue of the elections.

Time and again polls demonstrate that the Israeli public opposes retreat. The public has no problem appreciating just how reckless further retreats in the West Bank would be.  In point of fact, most of those who supported Ariel Sharon preferred him despite - rather than because - of his plans to carry out additional retreats after the elections. That's why the Olmert team intends to upstage the retreat debate with media coverage of security operations against settlers.  They know that if the elections turn into a debate over policy, support could plummet.

For the sake of Israel one can only hope that Netanyahu and the rest of the national camp are up to the formidable task of convincing the citizenry to vote for policy rather than personality.