Dramatic withdrawal announcement in the offing? Document: Haaretz columnist
Yoel Marcus supports Olmert after slamming him last week

[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Yoel Marcus was Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's top
cheerleader from the moment Sharon took his advice that his legal problems
would not be relevant if he started retreating.

Marcus slammed PM Olmert in his Friday 14 December column "No one to rely
on" (see below).

"The politician, unlike the leader, is preoccupied with ensuring his
survival more than with the public's welfare.. .Unlike Olmert's optimistic
forecasts, it is highly likely that the Winograd Committee's final
conclusions will place the responsibility for the Second Lebanon War
squarely on Olmert's shoulders, and he is doing and will do everything to
preserve his seat. Neither Olmert nor Defense Minister Ehud Barak, both of
whom have an interest in sticking together, can chalk up improvement in any
area within their purview to their government...Neither Olmert nor Barak
have the public's sweeping sympathy at present. As politicians in leaders'
clothing, they are conveying the message that there is nobody to rely on."

Seven days later Marcus devotes his column (see below) to argue that "It
will be a mistake and an injustice if a lethal, harsh conclusion by the
Winograd Committee throws a prime minister, who by all accounts has matured
as a leader, into the lions' den and throws the whole country into political
chaos."

What happened in the interim?

Is Yoel Marcus, a veteran Israeli journalist who has rubbed shoulders with
generations of Israeli leaders, so shallow that a visit to the prime
minister's residence is enough to cause such a dramatic change?

Doubt it.

Marcus cites the bombing of the Syrian facility on September 6 as proof that
Olmert has changed. But September 6 was also before his December 14 column
that slammed Olmert. Olmert's critics note that the problem is that the
operation in Syria is the exception - not the rule. The operation shows
what Israel can do when it recognizes a serious problem, prepares and then
executes a plan to address it. And in a timely fashion. This hasn't been
the case in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict (either on a military or
diplomatic level) nor in a myriad of other Israeli sectors (the high school
strike was resolved only after doing incredible damage to the students -
including 12th graders slated to be drafted this summer, while Israel's
university students may very well lose the entire year, and the list goes
on).

Marcus claims now that Olmert is a close pal of President Bush as evidenced
by photographs Olmert displays (similar to ones that can be found on the
walls of many politicians and political campaign contributors) and proclaims
that "On the basis of personal sympathy, the president decided to increase
U.S. security aid to Israel in the next decade from $24 billion to $30
billion." Again, a relationship Olmert also claimed to have when Marcus
wrote his 14 December column.

So what is really behind the about face?

Judging by Marcus' fervent belief that when it comes to withdrawals that the
ends justify the means and that he would basically use his Haaretz column to
support the devil himself if he thought it would promote withdrawal one can
only speculate that Mr. Olmert shared some information about withdrawal
plans that Mr. Marcus has decided to hold for another column.

And this with President Bush coming soon.

Stand by?

Better: be forewarned.

====================

One comment about Winograd
By Yoel Marcus Haaretz 21 December 2007
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/936894.html

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said recently that Ehud Olmert's personal
relations with President George W. Bush are a strategic asset for Israel.
That kind of compliment from a potential political rival, who is counting on
Olmert's fall so he can succeed him as prime minister in early elections, is
no small matter.

President Bush held former prime minister Ariel Sharon in very high regard
as a brave and resourceful general who could be your partner in crime, but
no personal relations developed between them. With Olmert, in contrast,
close relations have been formed. A psychologist would say it's because both
of them are at a low ebb in the polls and each has a common interest in
aiding the other in the war against Islamic terrorism.

Hanging on the wall in the prime minister's residence are two framed
photographs of Bush and Olmert strolling through the White House Rose
Garden, locked in an embrace. The photos were sent to him personally by Bush
as a mark of what the president terms their "close friendship." Bush
gradually lost the support of leaders who pinned hopes on him but were
disappointed because of the failed war in Iraq. When Tony Blair, the closest
and last of his confidants, resigned, Bush somehow found in Olmert an
interlocutor for intimate political conversations. On the basis of personal
sympathy, the president decided to increase U.S. security aid to Israel in
the next decade from $24 billion to $30 billion.

The two conceived and coordinated the negotiations with Palestinian
President Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) following Olmert's commitment to
withdraw to the 1967 lines on the basis of a territorial exchange and to
discuss the conflict's core issues when the time comes. Afterward came the
Annapolis conference, which many considered a success because of its large
turnout, including the presence of moderate Muslim countries. And on January
9, Bush is scheduled to begin a three-day visit to Israel.

The rashness and lack of judgment that characterized Olmert, due to his
blind trust in former chief of staff Dan Halutz, dragged the country into
the Second Lebanon War and effectively sealed Olmert's fate as a failed
leader. Barak was quick to seize control of the Labor Party, in the belief
that the Winograd Committee would bring about Olmert's ouster, leading to
early elections in 2008.

But Olmert's rivals misjudged his ability to learn from his failure and his
determination to mend his ways quickly. The dramatic turning point came with
the bombing of the Syrian facility on September 6. Until the details of the
operation become public, undoubtedly under pressure from the U.S. Congress,
which is demanding an authoritative revelation, its details remain secret.

In any event, this unusual operation demanded a complex decision-making
process, the maintenance of a precise timetable, coordination and
cooperation, and above all backing in Israel and abroad. Olmert shared,
consulted and weighed the operation in minute detail with the relevant
forums. He analyzed every possible scenario, including some that were
terrifying. One misstep and a regional war could have erupted.

The failure of the Lebanon war apparently gave birth to a leader who
internalized his failure in every sphere of his behavior, both in the
internal political constellation and his restrained behavior toward the
shelling by Hamas. In practice, not a day goes by without focused offensive
operations by the Israel Defense Forces in the Gaza Strip. In the past year,
260 terrorists have been killed, and three IDF soldiers. A massive entry
into Gaza is not on Olmert's agenda in any case.

Five days after the Bush visit, the Winograd Committee is due to make public
its final conclusions. As the committee did not issue prior warnings, its
conclusions will probably be left to the court of public opinion, which is
liable to demand the resignation of senior office holders, among them the
prime minister.

Aware of this danger, the Winograd Committee asked those involved to provide
it with documentation about flaws that have already been corrected. If the
committee takes into account the operation in Syria and all that preceded
it, and the way Olmert performed at home and abroad, the obvious conclusion
is that the war's conceptual mistakes have been learned.

It will be a mistake and an injustice if a lethal, harsh conclusion by the
Winograd Committee throws a prime minister, who by all accounts has matured
as a leader, into the lions' den and throws the whole country into political
chaos.

====

No one to rely on
By Yoel Marcus Haaretz 14 December 2007
www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/934498.html

You know something? It's beginning to dawn on us that we have too many
politicians and not enough leaders. What's the difference? Well, the
politician ponders tomorrow's headlines, but a leader concentrates on
long-term strategy - he identifies problems that will emerge in five to 10
years, and begins working on them now.

The leaders of the founding generation focused on "five-year plans" with a
long-term vision. These included the nuclear reactor, Rafael Advanced
Defense Systems, Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI) and even the free market.
When the Shavit 2 rocket was first launched, the opposition mockingly called
it an "election rocket."

Today we are one of the world's leading missile manufacturers, and IAI with
Rafael are inventing devices sold worldwide. We wouldn't have ended up with
the redundant teachers strike had our leaders dealt with the need for reform
in time.
Advertisement

Sadly, we haven't had a forward-looking leadership for years. It is not
enough for Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to telephone the old woman who was
violently robbed. The question is, why haven't our national leaders been
preparing to provide citizens with the required levels of security?

The government's ability to see projects through in all aspects of life has
withered alarmingly. It starts with inadequate homeland defense and ends
with a possible collapse in electricity supplies, because nobody has been
capable of deciding to boost power production. So where are the long-term
plans to fortify the home front, or to build more power stations, before
some other disaster strikes?

Long-term planning also provides instances of profound incompetence. Both
the railway line to Jerusalem and Ben-Gurion Airport 2000 were carried out
belatedly and in a way requiring immediate adjustment to the next
generation's needs.

Do we have to wait until a mass-victim accident before the airport adjusts
to the needs of the 21st century?

Many matters require thorough treatment with an eye to the future. Are they
receiving this treatment? It was reported, for example, that next year some
200,000 new vehicles are expected to go on the road. That means more
traffic. Asked whether the roads will be widened, the officials in charge
respond with the magic phrase "no budget." Instead of resigning in protest
at the expected increase in traffic accidents, Transport Minister Shaul
Mofaz is demanding Yuli Tamir's resignation from her post as education
minister.

The politician, unlike the leader, is preoccupied with ensuring his survival
more than with the public's welfare. It is common knowledge, for example,
that the number of hospital beds per person is small by every professional
standard. Is the government preparing for the expected shortage in hospitals
in a few years?

Certain matters require decisions under the pressure of the moment. But here
too there is a difference between a leader and a politician. When Olmert
says the "evacuation- compensation" plan is good "but not now," it is clear
that as a politician he does not want to confront the settlers. Why didn't
he respond to Condoleezza Rice's firm demand in Annapolis to evacuate
illegal outposts? Because he knows that he would be risking his political
survival and open himself to extortion. The last thing he wants at this time
is for Shas' Eli Yishai and Yisrael Beiteinu's Avigdor Lieberman to leave
him without a coalition.

Unlike Olmert's optimistic forecasts, it is highly likely that the Winograd
Committee's final conclusions will place the responsibility for the Second
Lebanon War squarely on Olmert's shoulders, and he is doing and will do
everything to preserve his seat.

Neither Olmert nor Defense Minister Ehud Barak, both of whom have an
interest in sticking together, can chalk up improvement in any area within
their purview to their government.

Hezbollah's missile capability reportedly covers Israel's entire territory.
This may or may not be true. But the danger that in the future Israel will
be subjected to stronger fire than that faced by Sderot exists.

Thirty Sderot residents filed a petition demanding that the state fortify
800 houses in the town. The state - incredible as this may sound - responded
that it had never been established that it was responsible for providing
citizens with complete protection from threats to body and property.

Two weeks earlier Olmert announced that "we won't fortify the country to
death." It's easy for a politician to play the leader when he is protected
by a safety belt that cost millions.

Neither Olmert nor Barak have the public's sweeping sympathy at present. As
politicians in leaders' clothing, they are conveying the message that there
is nobody to rely on.