What if there were two George Bushes?

What if there were one who one sent troops to fight and die on foreign soil, in a war lacking clear goals. What if that one led the war effort proclaiming unattainable objectives, proclaiming victory prematurely.

What if that one lost the support of the opposition party, and then his own - and continued to rule despite the loss of all popular trust, backing and credibility.

What if that one went into the war with a military force of immense deterrent capability, and lost it all.

And what if there was another George Bush, except that this one invaded Lebanon, and he looks just like Ehud Olmert?

No one could have seen it coming. Olmert came to power preaching a daring withdrawal in the West Bank, and the setting of permanent borders with an independent Palestinian state.

Where Bush seemed clueless, tongue-tied, Church-bound, a poorly tied marionette of shadowy higher-ups, unsuited to the majesty and the intellectual demands of high office, Olmert entered office as the very model of the manipulator, a consummate string-puller himself, unencumbered by ideology, ready to embark on a fresh future.

With blinding speed, however, Olmert put his future, like Bush's, firmly behind him.

In the depth of their incompetence, their inability to learn from experience, their jittery insecurity over lack of military background, Olmert and Bush have merged into a force of dangerous impotence.

Together, they have given new meaning to the concept of non-partisanship: no one wants them. In either party. With critical decisions to be made, with the lives of large numbers of soldiers and civilians weighing in the balance, they do as little as possible, change as little as possible, lead as little as possible.

Small wonder, then, that the same anti-Iraq war umbrella group that staged a massive protest against the Iraq war last month in Washington, has agreed to co-sponsor what it calls a two-day mobilization in June under the heading "The World Says No to Israeli Occupation."

The event will mark the 40th anniversary of the capture of the territories in the Six Day War. "The purpose of the event is to hopefully call greater attention both to the ongoing Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories, but also to call attention to the role that the U.S. plays in supporting that, and specifically the financial role, of course," Leslie Cagan, national coordinator of United for Peace and Justice, told the Forward.


We should have known. We shouldn't have been at all surprised last November, when Olmert took a seat beside Bush in the Oval Office and declared, "We are very much impressed and encouraged by the stability which the great operation of America in Iraq brought to the Middle East."

Olmert could have fostered peace talks by releasing large numbers of Palestinian prisoners. The 10,000 Israel holds have stayed right where they were.

Olmert could have taken advantage of transitional period in the Middle East to unleash a diplomatic offensive of creativity and courage.

Olmert could have signaled his willingness to keep lines of communication open with the Palestinians, by taking decisive action against illegal outposts in the West Bank. Instead, he shelved evacuation plans offered him by Defense Minister Amir Peretz, saying the timing wasn't right.

Olmert clearly has a different sense of time than the rest of us. Just like George Bush.