ISRAEL'S NEW GOV'T NEEDS DIRECTION

Perhaps Cheltenham High School helped shape Benjamin Netanyahu’s smarts so he gets why many Israelis flocked to the Likud Party, which he leads, and other right-wing parties. They voted for security, not to expand West Bank settlements or force Israeli Arabs to sign loyalty oaths.

If he becomes Israel’s seventh prime minister in 16 years, Netanyahu will preside over a broad coalition government in spirit if not reality. He probably recognizes that any victory he can claim is due to his lesser-evil status. He has already said he wants to form a centrist coalition government. Even if the Labor and Kadima parties rebuff his offer to join a government headed by Netanyahu, he will be crazy if he takes a hard-right stance on most issues.

Figuring out the Feb. 10 election is not easy. A draw? A moral victory? As in war, nobody won. Each candidate lost more than the eventual prime minister, who is expected to be either Netanyahu or Tzipi Livni, leader of the centrist Kadima Party. As some news articles quoting Israelis suggest, most voters want none of them. They do want Israel to survive and a leadership that acts sensibly, not in extremes.

Once the smoke from the election clears, the new government must settle into a stable course. It must move in a purposeful direction to build Israel’s future.

Israel has lacked for stable leadership since the Arab uprising in September 2000. Then-Prime Minister Ehud Barak performed a credible job confronting that conflict, but the following year his immediate successor - Ariel Sharon - employed a heavyhanded approach which contributed to a sharp rise in casualties on both sides.

Gaza and the West Bank afforded the perfect storm for the main battlegrounds as Israeli troops not only fought Arab terrorists but needed to protect the settlers. Sharon initially resisted the construction of the security barrier, which is credited with preventing the bombing attacks in Israel proper.

Credit Sharon’s government for withdrawing from Gaza in August and September 2005. The settlements were too difficult to protect. Perhaps a military presence should have been maintained, but even then the troops would been dragged into fights with Hamas and other terrorist factions. Of course, the upside is that their very presence would have prevented Hamas’s seizure of Gaza.

The war in June 2006 was started by Hamas from Gaza and Hezbollah in south Lebanon, after three Israeli soldiers were reportedly seized by terrorists with no provocation whatsoever. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had appointed a defense minister with barely any military experience, and that inexperience showed as Israel initiated an air campaign that could literally be described as overkill. Meanwhile, the army’s ground engagement was delayed too long and reserve troops in particular discovered that the military was poorly prepared for the war.

That war ended with no resolution on the capture of the three soldiers. Of course, we learned later that two soldiers were dead, but the soldier detained by Arabs in Gaza - Cpl. Gilad Shalit - was apparently still in captivity. Israel ended that war and, in fact, the recent war without freeing Shalit.

This means that Israelis first contended with a government that was too harsh and then a government that was in some ways too soft. Can Israel afford to keep swinging from one drifting governing approach to another?

Among the incoming government’s most important first steps will be appointment of the most qualified Defense Minister possible. Retaining Barak as Defense Minister will relieve every citizen of Israel. So far, Barak’s performance seems almost flawless. He smoothly planned and executed the Gaza retaliation that began last Dec. 27 and thoroughly utilized intelligence to impair Hamas’s military capability.

Moreover, he upgraded Israel’s military readiness; at least, I have seen no media reports criticizing the nation’s military preparedness. If Barak’s retention is not in the cards, the new prime minister must appoint a defense minister with ready credentials to build public confidence.

The political parties need to seek common ground, decide on a general direction for Israel’s future and prioritize the issues facing Israel. Many delicate concerns will defy an organized approach, but these factions should work together to reach compromises and perhaps find alternate solutions that never occurred to anyone before.

Judging from the election results, the Israeli people are first worried about survival. Understandably, they are tired of jumping through hoops for the Arabs. After offering the Arabs an independent state and fighting three wars in less than a decade, they want a government that will stand firm, but not a government that will recklessly incite World War III.

The outcome amounts to a split decision. The centrist party, Kadima, won 28 seats - one seat ahead of Likud, yet Likud and the other hardline parties won a collective 65 seats. That leaves 55 seats for Knesset members who do not support a hardline position. In addition, there is no question that the Yisrael Beitenu Party led by Avigdor Lieberman siphoned enough votes (winning 15 seats) from Netanyahu to allow Livni to edge him out.

Netanyahu, who spent part of his childhood in a Philadelphia suburb, is jostling with Livni for leadership of a coalition government. Interestingly, all three principal politicians - Netanyahu, Barak and Livni - possess impressive strengths. Any leader who could combine their qualities - Netanyahu’s natural leadership skills, Livni’s intelligence and sensibility and Barak’s abilities in military management - would make a great prime minister.

Drama will likely dominate the formation of the next government, but let’s hope the politicians keep the internal drama to a minimum once a government is established. The Arabs will give them enough drama.