And you thought the Knesset represents the will of the people?

August 17, 2006 - 1:13 AM by Sarah

Olmert
Gavriel Raanan, of Beit Shemesh, explains why, like many Israelis, he is itching for new elections . . .

I’ve read quite a few posts recently from bloggers upset with Ehud Olmert’s performance in this latest conflict that is even now likely only temporarily dormant.

While each of these criticisms tears Olmert a new one in its own unique location — not all of which I agree with — I nevertheless concur with the overwhelming conclusion: the Olmert government has not done the job. Olmert portrays to the world, to the Israel-hating Arab world surrounding us, an Israel that is not entirely sure how to defend itself. And so as the calls for a change of government begin, I have to reluctantly admit that sounds like it might be a good idea. I say reluctantly because you really don’t want to change airplanes mid-flight, unless you absolutely have to. And make no mistake, shaky cease-fire or not, this is one conflict that is definitely still mid-flight. Nevertheless, its sometimes better to jump and hope that thing on your back is a parachute, rather than wait for the sputtering plane you’re presently plummeting in suddenly ceases plummeting.

What’s wrong with Olmert? What could possibly be so bad? Regardless of Olmert’s hesitancy to use it, Israel’s enemies still know that we have great military might.

The problem is that, as with the United States, it’s not our military might that jihadists like Nasrallah are questioning so much as our will, and those questions begin at the top. The Prime Minister’s on-again off-again flirtation with the use of sufficient force was something maybe only two men could fully appreciate — Nasrallah, because he was largely the beneficiary, and John Kerry, who would have to admire a man with the nuance required to send in the troops before he stops them but who really meant to use them all along unless there was a cease-fire but for sure he’d use them better next time.

But, he points out, none of his political rivals will try to depose Olmert, unless there is something in it for them. And given that no other party has any sort of consensus, it’s hard to tell who in Knesset would benefit from calling for a new government . . .

Despite all this, what must be remembered when calling for Olmert’s replacement is that before a new government can take over, the previous government’s fingers must first be pried from the reins of power. In order for the government to get the boot, Olmert or other parties will have to somehow believe they would benefit from immediate elections.

So which party in Olmert’s coalition is going to bring the coalition down? Who in the coalition thinks the electorate would reward them if new elections were to happen tomorrow? In Israel it is not uncommon for parties to threaten the coalition over issues like transfer payments to the poor or whether businesses may open on Shabbat, believing that making a scene or even bringing down the government will get them a larger mandate in new elections from voters who care about those issues.

That is not the situation today. Any new elections would be about one thing and one thing only: the ability to lead Israel through this time of war, as Iran’s nuclear ambitions are coming to fruition. Which party in Olmert’s coalition would stand to gain anything in new elections in such an environment?

* Kadima (29 seats): New elections would probably vaporize Olmert’s party, Kadima. It was a brand new party elected only on Ariel Sharon’s comatose coattails, and those were getting shorter every day even before the recent conflict caused so many to question Olmert. So don’t look to Kadima to take one for the team, since the unemployment benefits for rejected politicians aren’t really all that great.

* Labor (19): Labor may not be quite as bad off, but they can’t expect voters to reward them for having placed their party head, union leader Amir Peretz, into the Defense Ministry to run a war as if it was a garbage strike. Peretz, used to the quick capitulation of Israel’s budget directors and treasury officials to each of his many strikes, seemed shocked that Hizballah didn’t surrender immediately the moment he made it clear he planned, as usual in his successful strikes, on doing basicallly nothing. Hey, it always worked before.

* Gil Pensioners (7): The retirees? Doubtful. First of all, they have to fear that they could lose some fraction of their previous voters, the source of the seven seats they now hold, just due to natural causes alone. But also since elections would be held while voters are in an existential, “serious-issue” mood, my guess is the single-issue Pensioners party would shrink if not disappear — and I’m guessing the Pensioners will guess the same thing and sit tight.

* Shas (12): The only party I can even imagine bolting is Shas, a religious party whose focus is on social issues. Shas is a party that has successfully strongarmed coalitions in the past to help sweeten its community’s pot. Nevertheless, in an election in which Israelis look for resolute leadership during military conflict, Shas certainly wouldn’t gain seats and could easily lose some. They might conceivably believe they could wrangle a better post-election deal with an alternate coalition, but surely they recognize how much easier it is to eat the bird in their hand rather than the birds in the bush, even if there are two of them and they’re kosher.

I just don’t see anyone in the coalition who would be ready to flip the lifeboat just yet, confident a better boat is close at hand. They all realize they’d just be dumped into shark infested water, hoping to find a piece of driftwood to cling to. Maybe when regular elections are two years or less away, when politicians begin identifying their electoral liabilities and start to do the distancing dance, maybe then some will abandon ship, hoping to prove themselves worthy of a seat in another party’s sturdier lifeboat.

Share with others