Ehud the Teflon

Michael Oren argues in Israel’s Lebanon Disaster that it’s imperative that PM Olmert resign in the face of the final Winograd Commission report in order to restore the country’s faith in its leadership.

In another country, perhaps, such blunders might result in the resignation of senior officers but not necessarily elected officials. In Israel, though, no one is above blame. Accountability for decision making is a tenet of the Zionist ethos on which the Jewish state is based and, unlike most nations, Israel has a citizens’ army in which the great majority — politicians included — serve. Most uniquely, Israel confronts daily security dangers and long-term threats to its existence. Israelis can neither condone nor afford a prime minister who passes the buck to their army or shirks the onus of defense. The person who sends us into battle cannot escape responsibility for our fate.

Jewish Current Issues (who linked to the Oren article) emphasizes the findings of the first Winograd report.

While the Winograd Commission report is expected to lay out the political and military failures of the war in Lebanon in 2006, don’t expect it to affect PM Olmert much. With his party circling the wagons the political consequences will probably be minimal.

On Tuesday night, bracing for the publication of the report, cabinet ministers from Kadima came to the prime minister’s defense, saying that it would be wrong to call elections with the government acting to further the peace process with the Palestinians. “The state of Israel will pay a high price if it goes to election,” Finance Minister Ronnie Bar-On said at a meeting of Kadima activists in Tiberias. “The prime minister is determined on this score, and no system of pressure will make a difference. For the first time in seven years there is an attempt to create a diplomatic process, [and] the economy is growing.”

The IDF is concerned that a majority of the blame could fall on the military leadership.

The IDF braced itself Tuesday ahead of the scheduled publication Wednesday of the Winograd Committee’s final report on the Second Lebanon War.

Senior officers told The Jerusalem Post that the IDF top brass was preparing for a “worst-case scenario,” in which the military – and not the political echelon – would be blamed for most of the war’s failures.

Probably the biggest mistake was having Amir Peretz as Defense Minister. While it obviously was hard to deny the leader of the second largest faction his choice of portfolio, that was Olmert’s responsibility. With a military ignoramus in control of the army, there was no effective oversight of the military. But Peretz is gone, not because of his incompetence (at least not directly) but because he lost the post as leader of his party.

Contentions.David Hazony observed

The Winograd report has the potential to tip any of these over the edge. The report will probably lay heavy blame on then-IDF Chief of Staff Dan Halutz, who failed to prepare the military for war and failed to run the war while it was happening; and on the mustachioed then-Defense Minister Amir Peretz, whose breathtaking ignorance of military affairs raises serious questions about the merits of parliamentary democracy. But the real questions will rise about Olmert, who laid out major objectives for the war, none of which were achieved; and who ran the war as if he were still trading favors at Jerusalem City Hall.

The problem, Hazony alludes to is the nature of Israel’s parliamentary democracy. It could be that all the pressures brought to bear will force Olmert to resign and take his government with him. Still, I don’t detect a lot of interest in getting rid of Olmert. At least not where it counts. The country’s political leadership is very insulated.

Contrary to what Oren wrote, the Left very much wants Olmert in place, because he is committed to the exact same thing they are: the peace process. And for the Israeli Left, the peace process takes precedence over all else; even over democracy and accountability. Also, many Israelis, while they may dislike their leadership, are generally content.

In Ehud Olmert’s Israel, Peter Berkowitz writes:

So ask Israelis about the state of the nation, and they will tell you that things are grim and growing worse. But, observes political strategist Eyal Arad, chairman of the Euro Israel Group and former adviser to Prime Ministers Sharon and Olmert, ask Israelis about their personal prospects and many will tell you they have never had it better. In fact, since recovering in 2003 from the Second Intifada, the Israeli economy is booming, particularly in high-tech industries. The stores are stocked with the latest European fashions and electronic gadgets from around the world. Newer, taller, more glistening buildings distinguish the Tel Aviv skyline. In addition, the health care system boasts excellent facilities, superb physicians, and universal coverage. Literature, music, theater, and filmmaking flourish. Radio and TV feature lively, loud, and nonstop discussion of issues great and small.

And combine that with the fact that PM Olmert’s two most likely opponents, MK’s Ehud Barak and Binyamin Netanyahu, are former Prime Ministers themselves with lots of baggage and the necessary “perfect storm” just doesn’t seem to be there to force the fall of the government.

Last June, PM Olmert showed some remarkable resilience in the face of adversity. He demonstrated his political survival skills then. Barring a criminal indictment, I don’t believe that Olmert will step down or that the necessary pressure will be brought to bear to make that happen.

He’s like the cartoon character happily strolling along oblivious to and untouched by the massive catastrophes occurring around him.

He’s Ehud the Teflon.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.