1. Ehud Olmert is no threat to Benjamin Netanyahu. Let him run. He would be a fitting ornament to Haim Ramons destructive gang and his companions at Yedioth Aharonoth. Let us remember that the State Attorneys Office seems to be about to appeal the former prime ministers acquittal, which was granted due to reasonable doubt, mainly in the case of Talanskys cash-filled envelopes. A more severe indictment also possibly awaits Olmert for allegedly taking bribes in the Holyland case: NIS 1.8 million from the Holyland entrepreneurs and NIS 476,000 from Hazera Genetics Ltd. 2. In a radio interview the day after early elections were announced, Haim Ramon marked out the code words for the destructive gang around him and his close associates in the media: alternative, Netanyahu, bad government, natural alliance, haredim, settlers. He repeated them incessantly, just like the voodoo dolls of Channel 2 commentator Amnon Abramovitch & Co. No, that cannot have been coordinated; it just passes hereditarily among the 'camp of destruction,' which is growing smaller and smaller. Ramon was behind the destruction of the Likud party and the establishment of the political mutation known as Kadima. He was behind the disgraceful "disengagement" and the destruction of Jewish communities in Gaza, together with the smearing of Israels modern pioneers, and joining with the Palestinians against Netanyahus government (wait, wait do not negotiate with Netanyahus government; we will soon return to power and resume the negotiations from the reckless starting point offered by Ehud Olmert). It was not only destruction, but hatred as well. Ramon made a career out of defining himself and his surroundings by hatred of the political other, just like in the days of Mapai. Anyone who was not one of ours deserved heaps of abhorrence and scorn: the Likud, the haredim, the settlers, the nationalists, the extremists them, those others. Incidentally, even Avigdor Lieberman is a natural ally of Netanyahu. Ramon never mentioned him. Interesting
3. The media: Note the enormous pressure, which will get even more powerful over the next several days, that the Left is under to unite. We have a common enemy not the Iranians or Hamas, but Netanyahu. The Voldemort of the Israeli Left. We didn't see such heavy pressure from the media when the Right was split. At the time, it was convenient. And more pressure is being brought to bear again and again: Shas must replace Eli Yishai with Aryeh Deri, Haim Ramons haredi twin. The idea is that Shas, led by Deri, will join with the Left. They recall how Deri brought them his votes on a silver platter to ensure that the blood-drenched Oslo Accords would pass. In any case, it is doubtful whether Deri will be able to say no to the haredi-Sephardi street, whose political tendencies are very healthy. 4. The Center: Everybody wants to crowd into the Center. But the Center is no more than an imaginary destination. Israeli voters have solid opinions on just about every subject. This Center is neither here nor there, neither radical like the Left nor nationalist like the Right, or whatever other cliches one might use. The truth is that the Center is a disguise the Israeli Left uses to steal votes from the conservative and right-wing camps. That was how they sold Rabin in 1992 a man devoted to security, not really a leftist and we ended up with Arafat and Oslo. At the economic level, the Center speaks Netanyahus language. At the political level, it leans more toward the Left. But politically speaking, what can it sell? A Palestinian state, the evacuation of settlements, the destruction of Jewish communities, a military threat by an Islamist entity on the center of the country from the mountains of Samaria? Meretz is selling us the same thing. One amusing anecdote was heard from Yosef Paritzky, a former member of the Shinui party, when he analyzed the traits of centrist voters, something like independent liberals. Let's say it's true. But then he started using the process of elimination to remove the left-wing leaders, and was left with only Ehud Barak as a possible leader for the Center. Nice trick. Oh, did we mention Rabin- 5. In one of the doomsday essays that he is wont to write, Haaretz columnist Ari Shavit speaks of Netanyahu I and II. He complains that Netanyahu did not offer the public a revolution, but only stability: security-related, economic and political stability. But since the world economy and the Arab world surged around him, Netanyahus stagnant stability became a gold mine. I have always liked stories about journeys: sailing ships on stormy seas, sweaty sailors bailing sea water from the decks, frightened passengers clutching the wooden beams and the ship goes forward without capsizing, sailing confidently and stable in the heart of the storm. The caution required during a time of madness obligates us not to gamble on short-term solutions, but rather to wait patiently until the horizon clears. That is what a level-headed, experienced person does. But for Ari Shavit and his ilk, stability is a bad word. Shavit wants a revolution. An eternal option. This coming Shabbat, we will begin reading the book of Genesis. The entire creation story speaks in praise of evolution, not revolution. Like the waters of the Pool of Siloam that flow slowly. That is the fundamental principle of conservatism: no revolutions, no populist solutions that last for a short historical breath. Instead, careful navigation through the wild thickets of history, listening to the inner voices of the entire nation (not only those of a narrow, self-important layer), reliance on the sound mind of the masses, and just as important learning from the historical failures that we have experienced. 6. The United States elections. Ladies and gentlemen, a revolution. For the first time, Obama spoke directly, without a teleprompter or the protective umbrella of his many adherents in the media. For the first time, Romney spoke directly to the public without the hostile mediation of the liberal media and the embarrassing traps it laid for him. Although the confrontation is far from over, here are some insights that I gleaned from philosopher and historian Ran Baratz in the excellent digital magazine Mida. The debate was between real statistics and false messages provided by consultants. For example, Obama claimed that middle-class families pay $3,600 dollars less in taxes. Romney answered: They also earn $4,300 less. The prices of fuel, electricity and food have gone up. Health-related spending has increased by $2,500 per family. 0:1. Obama said he would lower taxes for 97 percent of small businesses but he would raise them for the remaining 3%. Romney answered that those 3% comprised half the work force in small businesses and a quarter of the American work force. That will mean the loss of 700,000 jobs. 0:2. Obama said that the Clinton era lends strength to his economic approach. Romney asked him: What about your history as president? Twenty-three million people looking for work, an unemployment rate of more than 8% over most of your term, and reduced economic growth. Obama, who promised to cut the deficit by half, increased it by a trillion dollars each year. 0:3. Barack Obama said benefits for fuel and natural gas companies must be abolished. Romney answered that while the issue was open to debate, the amount under discussion was $2.8 billion dollars per year, while Obama provided, in only a single year, $90 billion (!). The money went to failed green-energy producers (some of whom contribute to his campaign). All this took place at a time when the number of licenses to produce energy on government land had already been reduced by half. 0:4. And so on. Barack Obama was fighting not only against Romney, but also against the bitter facts. Not perceptions statistics.