The Israeli elections got underway this week -- and it may not be a one-horse race, writes Graham Usher from Jerusalem The Israeli elections campaign began in earnest on 6 March with the transmission of party political broadcasts. Ariel Sharon's incumbent Kadima Party -- under the acting leadership of Ehud Olmert and in the continued absence of a "Palestinian partner" -- beamed the prospect of unilateral West Bank "withdrawals" to determine Israel's permanent eastern border and ensure a "Jewish majority". Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud Party condemned the same as a "retreat" before Palestinian Authority's newly elected Hamas government. And the Labour Party's Amir Peretz -- sleeves rolled up -- went walkabout in a development town trying to insert his "social agenda" into a campaign that has so far been about "security, security, security", said one potential voter in Tel Aviv. The party sound-bites were predictable and so, according to the polls, is the outcome. The latest surveys show Kadima winning 37 seats in the 120-member parliament, Labour winning 19 and Likud 15. But the polls are at last giving the campaign an edge. In January -- when Ariel Sharon suffered his stroke -- they showed Kadima with 44 seats, Labour with 19 and Likud with 12. In other words -- in the two months since Sharon's fall -- Kadima has declined in support, Labour has stabilised and Likud and the far right parties (projected to get 10 seats) have recovered, at least a little. The safest best is still Kadima. But with 12 per cent of the Israeli electorate still floating between the broadcasts "the race is not over yet," says one analyst. This is especially so as the more Kadima emerges from Sharon's shadow the frailer it appears. From the moment of Hamas's victory, Olmert has insisted that Israel's terms for contact with the next PA government are also the world's -- recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; disarmament of the Palestinian resistance; and adherence to previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements. The problem is the more the world becomes inured to a Hamas government the more untenable the conditions become. On 3 March a Hamas delegation met Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow, a "momentous breakthrough" in the political quarantine Israel has tried to impose on the movement, said Hamas political leader Khaled Mashaal. That night an angry Olmert called Russian President Vladimir Putin, telling him "it was a mistake to meet the Hamas leaders before the organisation committed itself to accepting the three principles approved by the Quartet, of which Russia is a member." Another member of the Quartet -- the US -- said the meeting was "useful" since "it served the purpose to deliver the message." In the same phone call Olmert said, "when a government by Hamas is established, it won't be possible to make an artificial separation between the government and parliament controlled by Hamas, and the presidency controlled by Abu Mazen [Mahmoud Abbas]." The thrust of the US and Europe's present policy is precisely to keep that artifice, with Abbas serving as a "counterbalance" and alternative to Hamas. Olmert and the US may be on the same page when it comes to Hamas, but they are no longer reading from the same script. The same confusion assails Kadima's blueprint for the future. Over the weekend Olmert let it be known through various Israeli media that, should Hamas not fulfil the three conditions, Israel would abandon even its theoretical commitment to the roadmap and enlist international support for a unilateral determination of its borders. "In each diplomatic process, Jerusalem will remain sovereign and united (under Israeli control), the main settlement blocs, and security areas essential for Israel's security will be retained," he said. He left the details to be spelled by his Kadima colleague and ex- intelligence chief, Avi Dichter. Dichter said the blocs would not only include the usual ones of Ariel, Gush Etzion and Maale Adumim but also Shomron-Kedumim, Ofra-Beit El, both in the centre of the West Bank, and Hebron-Kiryat Arba, in the southern West Bank. Israel's eastern border would be the "Jordan Valley". Seven or eight isolated, "messianic" settlements around Nablus and Bethlehem would be withdrawn. But even here it would be a "civilian disengagement, not a military disengagement", said Dichter, i.e. the Israeli army would remain in control of those areas. In other words, Israel's military hold and presence in the West Bank would be no less after the "withdrawal" than before. The idea that Olmert could enlist international support for such a dispensation is wholly imaginary, including in capitals as sympathetic as Washington. In fact the best coda for Kadima's grand illusion was given in an editorial in Israel's Haaretz newspaper. "This is not a withdrawal. It's not even worth discussing." There is another part of the Sharon legacy that is being discussed, however -- graft. In the last two weeks Israel's State Comptroller has had to investigate Olmert twice for dodgy real estate purchases in Jerusalem. Leading Kadima member Tzachi Hanegbi has an indictment served on him by the attorney-general for making "political appointments" with the environment minister. And Sharon's son Ormi -- waiting to serve a nine-month prison sentence for election fraud -- had the pages of his diary exposed on Israel's Channel 10 TV. These showed how, in return for votes, Likud Central Committee members were given positions in government companies. Ormi is now a member of a Kadima. The Israeli electorate are notoriously thick- skinned when it comes to corruption -- but so were the Palestinians, at least before the last elections.
