Tzipi Livni and Israel's Future

Fania Oz-Salzberger, Chair of Modern Israel Studies at Monash University and a senior lecturer in history at the University of Haifa, had a weekend interview in the Wall Street Journal with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni entitled “Move Over Olmert.” 

It is a long puff-piece, but it ends with an insight into Livni’s two-sided political problem -- her decision to call for Olmert’s resignation while not offering her own:

Ironically, her greatest liability is the party she co-founded, fraught from its infancy by an unending tide of drama: Ariel Sharon's stroke, Mr. Olmert's Lebanese misadventure, Labor's unsuccessful chief as coalition partner, the string of probes and investigations, and now the Winograd showdown.

If Kadima sinks, it is hard to see how Ms. Livni will remain afloat. If Kadima survives, however, Ms. Livni may yet be called upon to navigate the ship of state through the world's wildest water course.

In other words, she has to stay where she is if she hopes to become prime minister, but her decision to stay where she is demonstrates why she shouldn’t be prime minister. 

Uzi Landau, who served as Chair of the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs & Defense Committee and whose resume includes a Ph.D from M.I.T., writes that considering Livni to lead Israel means Israel has “completely lost it” -- “Prime Minister Livni?  Have We Gone Crazy?”

Let's put aside for a moment Israel's . . . flawed public relations efforts, for which the foreign minister is directly responsible.  Let's also put aside the question of why she was ineffectual vis-a-vis Olmert during the war.

But how did she even become a party to a decision to embark on a war she about which she had no clue?  And why didn't she resign right after it if she thought Olmert was unworthy? . . . Livni, with all due respect, is where she is not by merit but by chance. . . And while she's finishing up her one-year internship at the Foreign Ministry, she's already rushing to do some basic training at the Prime Minister's Office . . .

We haven't heard [Kadima’s politicians] cry out over the government's futility in the face of daily rocket barrages on Sderot.  They did not demand that Olmert resign, and did not threaten to resign themselves, as long as they believed the reservists' authentic protest [would] be forgotten.

In Ari Shavit’s lengthy post-war interview with Livni last year, there was this illuminating exchange:

Livni: . . .  I think it's proper to conduct a situation assessment every day.  To examine at every moment whether conditions have changed. As of today, Syria is totally involved in terror.  It is doing as it pleases in Lebanon and is trying to bring down the Siniora government.

Shavit:  Really?  And I thought that the situation on the northern border is excellent.  The declarations of the prime minister convinced me that our historic victory in the second Lebanon war led to a situation where Hezbollah was smashed, Nasrallah is in a bunker and the situation of the moderates in Lebanon has never been better.

Livni:  I still think that the situation in Lebanon is better than it was. . . .

Shavit:  Do you view the war as a success?

Livni:  The diplomatic result of the war -- UN General Assembly Resolution 1701 -- is a success.

Well then, why should Olmert resign?  If, as a result of the war, the situation is Lebanon is better than it was, and if the diplomatic result of the war was a success, why does Israel need new leadership? 

Here are the final two questions that Shavit asked Livni in his interview:

Shavit:  Is there a possibility that you would run against Olmert?

Livni: [Blah, blah, blah].

Shavit:  I don't hear any outright rejection of running against Olmert.

Livni:  I'm interested not in the job but in the issue.  I entered politics first and foremost to further the diplomatic issue.  At the point where I am, that can be done if there is support from the prime minister.  Therefore, if I have such support and I can do what I believe I must, I won't look for the next slot. 

With Olmert on the ropes, she decided to stay right where she is, looking for the next slot. 

Israel suffered from electing an inexperienced Prime Minister, who picked an inexperienced Defense Minister and an inexperienced Foreign Minister, who thinks she won the war at the U.N. 

In a war that is in significant part a media war, and in which the ability to speak compelling English is a strategic asset, it may not be wise to consider for prime minister another neophyte who speaks garbled English.

The obvious remedy for Israel’s current malaise is a new election to allow the people to speak and to provide the next leader with a popular mandate.  But Livni has come out against a new election, for obvious reasons. 

Where is the Bush Administration’s call for democracy in the Middle East when you really need it?

Comments

[Yidwithlid]

Rick

Your Line-- Where is the Bush Administration’s call for democracy in the Middle East when you really need it?

Is an all time classic

[Dr. Chemical]

The line is cute, but in reality Olmert and Livni are the result of perhaps too much democracy. And Bush is hardly in a position to call for elected officials to resign when they become unpopular.