But neither the fact of Sharon’s tenure in office, nor his policies/actions that pertained to that, NECESSITATED the election of Olmert for any reason. Nor is there any logical necessity for continuing support of Olmert’s policies (indeed, the contrary is necessary to the survival of Israel).

Giving up Gaza, how does that bear a ‘causal’ relationship to giving up Judea and Samaria? If anything, it seems that having given up Gaza–in light of the consequences of that, rather suggests that action as a ’cause’ for NOT giving up Judea and Samaria.

So, not only are the premises inimical to Israel’s interests, but (with due respect to you) their suggested (affirmative) ‘causal relationship’ to current policy is not demonstrable.

I think you came much closer to identifying a causal factor, connecting Olmert’s to Sharon’s policies–and thus the election of Olmert, when you wrote that “Israelis [...] are bewildered.”

How tragic that, just when Israel needs hope and strong leadership, their bewilderment has engendered a weakness of despair which, rather than strengthening Israeli’s resolve to ensure strong leadership for the sake of survival, that weakness has tempted Israelis to acquiesce in a measure to suffer a more beggarly existence.

Zionists (Jews) are averse (many, in the extreme) to relinquishing any part of Israel. You say “there’s no choice”. Certain Jews are working very hard to introduce meaningful political choices (e.g., Paul Eidelberg, et al), as you must know. The REAL problem, as I see it, is that a majority of ‘Israelis’ have a priori made other kinds of choices which serve to preclude pro-Zionist candidates from the ballot. Put another way, because that far too many ‘Israelis’ have no real commitment to the Word of God, the Zionist vision has no appeal whatsoever to them; and self-preservation (in terms of national identity) lacks substantive moral/philosophical foundation. There’s no good reason, in that case, to retain a portion of land (Israel) that just happens for the time being to be occupied by enemy forces. Solution: Zionism and conquest? Not an option to mere ‘Israelis’, in the absence of a truly JEWish consciousness, and in the face of massive international opposition to all things Jewish–especially to the Zionist enterprise.

“Absurd logic, to be sure, but logic nonetheless.”

What’s “absurd” might appear expedient, but it is not logical by any means.

Olmert is jaded. But he was jaded BEFORE he was elected. WHY, then, did he win the popular vote?

I suggest it is because a significant portion of the Israeli population doesn’t ‘care’ either; that is, they don’t care for “the Jews”.

Jewishness (contrary to what many believe) is not bequeathed by mere patrimony; but it involves a recognizeable set of ideas, a worldview. That worldview is, necessarily, pro-Zionist.

There’s the rub. It is, it has been, it will always be a religious conflict–no less waged from within than from without.

IDENTITY is inseparably related to SELF-preservation. Living organisms are compelled–by virtue of SELF-consciousness (identity-awareness)–to protect that identity (self) against destruction.

It really is not difficult to understand WHY the battle lines are drawn WHERE they are drawn. It just takes a willingness to acknowledge the truth. That’s too tough for most folks. Truth is a mirror….