In Focus: Hedging the bets Pondering his options, Bush is sticking with Israel despite the consequences, writes Galal Nassar On 30 April 2007, the Winograd Committee issued its report on the Olmert-Bush war on Lebanon, a war that left more than 1,000 Lebanese killed, destroyed dozens of villages, and drove thousands from their homes. This was also the war in which Lebanese resistance changed the rules of the game, inflicting defeat on the once- thought invincible Israeli army, and killing 163 Israelis. For the first time in its history, Israel saw thousands of its inhabitants fleeing from the north to the central and southern parts of the country. Many left Israel for the entire duration of the war. Hundreds of missiles fell deep inside the country, a precedent in the history of Arab- Israeli wars. The Winograd report didn't mince its words. It was accurate, daring, blunt and clear. This displeased some in Israel, one of whom denounced the report as being "boring, demagogic, naïve, and lacking in specific substance." The Israelis say that the report's aim is to reduce the possibility of mistakes being repeated. But the report goes beyond that. It exposes the social fragility, spiritual vacuum, and political haplessness of Israel. The report called Olmert "a failed leader, a man lacking in experience, reckless and thoughtless". His Kadima Party appeared about to disintegrate, with other parties contemplating a takeover. In many parts of Israel, criticism of Olmert, Peretz and Halutz was mounting. And Olmert was fighting for dear life. He was quoted as saying that, "those who are conspiring against me, I will cut them into pieces, one by one. I will reorganise Kadima once this is over. I am an old fox, with 33 years in politics. I have been denounced before. I have been called a spent force. But I haven't come this far for nothing. I am no stranger to bickering. Those who attack me will regret it." For the time being at least, Olmert seems to have weathered the storm. His opponents, inside and outside Kadima, are changing their tone. One reason for this is the solid support he got from the White House. President Bush supported the war in Lebanon. Bush bought time for Israel during the war, because he wanted Israel to crush the Lebanese resistance. Bush had hoped that an Israeli victory would pave the way for a "new Middle East". After the Winograd report, the US president once again stood by Olmert, for obvious reasons. Any criticism of Olmert is implicitly a denouncement of the White House. The US is fighting simultaneous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is facing defeat on both fronts. So the US has grown accustomed to lying. It can no longer distinguish freedom from oppression, torture from human rights, or victory from defeat. Interestingly, the US still views Israel as the "only democracy" in the Middle East. The Winograd report is being watered down by those who cannot tell the difference between idiocy and level-headedness. The most important thing for such people is to win, not to spare blood. When the Winograd report was released, one writer said, "a failed war took place here last summer, a war that was the worst in Israel's history. We have experienced horrors and failure. The army was crippled on the front, and the home front was a mess." But the mood is changing now. Some people are arguing that the war was a great victory, that the aggression in Lebanon deflected greater evils, and that Israel is safer with Hizbullah pushed north of the Litani River. The defeat is once again being portrayed as a great act of self-defence. The reason is simple. The Americans are going to send Israel F-22 planes. Such planes, one analyst said, "can fly in the sky without being detected. They can fly long distances, even reach Iran or Iraq and come back. Some can carry nuclear arms." The US is helping Olmert to spite the Arabs and Iran. And it knows that Israel's army is the one army it can depend on in the Middle East. Bush is said to be considering talks with Syria and Iran. But, for the time being, he is hedging his bets.