Gantz's comments on the 2005 Disengagement Plan show us who he really is. He doesn't think there are any lessons to be learned from the unilateral uprooting of settlements in the Gaza Strip and northern Samaria.
He apparently thinks the plan was so good that Israel should do more of the same and to hell with the consequences this could have on Israel's national security and diplomatic standing.
And of course, he can't just say something without immediately shifting attention to some archival footage showing Netanyahu being responsible for everything, from corruption to the disengagement.
Usually, Netanyahu's detractors call him a right-wing fanatic – even a fascist. But when they try to convince us that we have to make unilateral concessions, they once again cite the great "leftist" Netanyahu.
The fact of the matter is that Netanyahu resigned from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's government just before the plan was implemented and refused to endorse Sharon's policies.
Gantz's interview with Israeli celebrities Shlomo Artzi and Hanoch Daum shows that he wants to be at the heart of the Israeli mainstream and to harp on the nostalgia associated with Artzi and his songs.
Gantz has stepped into a minefield without having a map to guide him. In fact, a party headed by Artzi and Daum would have been much more appealing than Gantz's Israel Resilience Party.
Advocating a second disengagement plan was a misstep. It shows that despite his denials, he sees eye-to-eye with the ideological leaders of the Left, including former Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
Gantz was a remote-controlled candidate until that interview. Everything was staged and scripted down to the finest of details. He even knew what questions he would get from the handpicked crowd. He even had the answers prepared in advance.
Artzi and Daum are good people but they cannot be programmed. As their interview shows, even a shallow rut in the ground can cause an unfit paratrooper a sprained ankle.
Gantz and the Left are in a bind. He would have preferred to avoid policy questions altogether. As far as his campaign operatives are concerned, he should be singularly focused on one message – "to be or not to Bibi?" – as a means of contrasting him with the incumbent prime minister.
So why is he boxed in? Because if the April 9 election is about Netanyahu's performance as prime minister and he trounces both Gantz and Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid, this would essentially render a nonguilty verdict in his corruption cases, at least in the court of public opinion. This would strip Gantz of any legitimacy to demand his resignation upon being indicted.
