Political casualties may be next in Israel

JERUSALEM — Israel's costly and inconclusive war in Lebanon has triggered a round of internal recriminations so bitter that some observers question whether Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's government can survive.

In the aftermath of weeks of combat and a cease-fire accord that appears to fulfill almost none of Israel's war aims, a wave of public discontent threatens the careers of several senior Olmert associates, and perhaps the prime minister himself, analysts say.

"The mood is very, very angry," said historian Tom Segev. "Not because of the outbreak of the war, which many Israelis felt they could live with, but because of the sense that the results are not a victory at all."

A chief target of public wrath is Amir Peretz, the neophyte defense minister whose performance has been pilloried as amateurish, overconfident and inconsistent. Polls this month indicated that more than half of Israelis think he should be removed.

Army chief of staff Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz is another potential casualty. The battle tactics of the former air-force commander, including exclusive reliance on air power in the war's first weeks, were sharply criticized. Then he became embroiled in a scandal over the disclosure that he sold off his stock portfolio hours after the start of combat.

Also damaged by the conflict's outcome, although less seriously, was Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, a close Olmert associate who had been seen as a rising star.

Commentators generally have concluded that Livni did a less-than-effective job of presenting Israel's rationale for the war to foreign leaders, forcing Israel to accept a premature end to the fighting. One newspaper article even picked apart her grammatical mistakes in English during appearances in New York, where she met with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan.

All this has been a shocking turnabout for the prime minister, whose nearly 80 percent approval rating in the war's initial weeks was halved after the cease-fire took hold.

"It really remains to be seen whether Olmert has the political wisdom and the political capital at this point to stabilize matters," said Efraim Inbar, the director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies.

The full effect of popular discontent might not be evident yet, he said, because some Israeli troops still are operating inside Lebanon and public criticism tends to be muted while soldiers remain under fire.

Olmert stepped in when Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was felled by a stroke, and then led the incapacitated leader's Kadima party to victory in March elections. He had been in power less than three months when successive crises broke out in the Gaza Strip in late June and Lebanon in mid-July.

In both cases, large-scale offensives were launched within hours of raids that killed Israeli soldiers and resulted in the capture of three others.

Many analysts now believe that Olmert and Peretz, both of whom have negligible military backgrounds, reacted without sufficient reflection, in part perhaps because they feared appearing weak in comparison with previous leaders who possessed strong battlefield credentials.

Somewhat paradoxically, critics have blamed Olmert both for relying excessively on top generals' advice and for preventing commanders from carrying out a massive ground offensive until the final 48 hours of fighting, too late to affect the course of the conflict.

Criticism also is being aimed at Sharon, who has been comatose since Jan. 4 and has suffered a series of life-threatening medical setbacks in recent weeks. Sharon was at the helm for most of the six years since Israel withdrew from Lebanon in spring 2000.

He is being blamed now for intelligence failures and for failing to prevent Hezbollah's acquisition of an enormous arsenal of sophisticated weaponry, including long-range missiles and advanced anti-tank weapons that were used to lethal effect against Israeli armor during the fighting.

Sharon's decision to unilaterally withdraw Israeli troops and Jewish settlers from the Gaza Strip, what had been viewed as his principal legacy, is also under assault.

Months of attacks by Palestinian militants in Gaza using crude missiles that rarely caused death or serious damage were not sufficient to make people conclude that the pullout had been a mistake.

But Hezbollah's hail of nearly 4,000 much more powerful rockets, which killed dozens, injured hundreds and effectively shut down Israel's northern tier, has caused a dramatic reappraisal of what had been the generally held view that unilateral handover of territory can lay the groundwork for peace.

"It became clear that the legitimacy of a recognized international border offers Israel no protection against terrorism," prominent commentator Aluf Benn wrote last week in Haaretz.

Olmert's aides quietly have conceded that his plan to turn over most of the West Bank to the Palestinians is extremely unlikely to move forward soon.

But the idea of uprooting most Jewish settlers from the West Bank and consolidating them in a few settlement blocs close to the pre-1967 border was the centerpiece of Olmert's electoral campaign, and without it, many commentators believe his Kadima party now lacks a raison d'etre.

A Netanyahu return?

Olmert's main challenger would seem to be former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the conservative Likud Party that Sharon abandoned a few months before being stricken.

Under Netanyahu's leadership, Likud won just one-tenth of the 120 parliament seats in March, its worst election result ever. Because of that, even the fortunes of war might not be sufficient to vault him back into contention.

Netanyahu is proceeding with caution in light of a reputation for political opportunism that has hurt him in the past. For most of the war, he was careful not to criticize the government. After the cease-fire took effect last week, however, he told legislators there had been "many failures" in the conflict's planning and execution.

Army reservists' accounts of being sent into battle with inadequate training and equipment have added to the public fury. One reservist told Israeli media that supply lines were so poorly organized that thirsty soldiers were forced to strip water canteens from the corpses of fallen Hezbollah fighters.

Some commentators believe Olmert's government has no chance at all of serving out its four-year term, even if it can survive in the short term.

Commentator Yoel Marcus wrote in Friday's editions of Haaretz that no Israeli government in memory had so swiftly squandered its stature and popularity.

Still, a Parliament that has been in office less than four months may be unwilling to hand Olmert a vote of no confidence and thus effectively dissolve itself.

A shake-up of the existing Cabinet may be enough to mollify the public for the moment. But even if Peretz were replaced as defense minister, he probably would be given another senior portfolio because of his standing as the leader of Labor, which won the second-largest bloc of parliamentary seats.

Calls have been growing for establishment of a commission to investigate the conduct of the war, similar to an investigation following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which Israel nearly lost. Such a panel would be empowered to dismiss senior officials.

Peretz, apparently seeking to forestall such a step, announced this month that he was appointing a committee headed by respected former army chief of staff Amnon Lipkin-Shahak to investigate military decision-making during the conflict. But that step only served to spark more criticism.

"It's not right that a minister who was among the decision-makers in time of war would be the one to nominate members of an inquiry to investigate it," legislator Zehava Galon said.

Analysts say it would be perilous for Olmert's government publicly to pit itself against the military establishment, even if it is generally accepted that senior commanders devised a flawed battle plan.

"What is important to remember is that Israelis consider the army to be part of their family — because it is literally true in so many cases," historian Segev said. "People can easily turn their backs on a given government. But the army will always have the public's loyalty and support."