By AMY TEIBEL
The Associated Press
Thursday, January 4, 2007; 4:14 AM

JERUSALEM -- A year after a stroke felled Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israelis are disenchanted with his successor as prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and many are wondering if things would have been better now if Sharon were still in office.

Sharon is still in a coma in a Tel Aviv hospital and is not expected to recover. Olmert's political situation is not much different. Polls show only about a third of the people approve of his handling of the premiership, his summer war in Lebanon is largely regarded as a failure and people are skeptical about his ability to move forward with the Palestinians.

Columnists have been pointing out the differences between Olmert and Sharon, in style and substance. While Sharon made dramatic shifts in policy after careful planning, such as his decision to pull out of Gaza last year, Olmert is perceived as a slick operator with few bedrock principles, blowing in the political wind.

Writing in the Maariv daily, columnist Ben Caspit voted that Olmert's year in office "began at dizzying heights and ended with a resounding crash."

"Unlike his predecessor, Olmert is unpredictable," Caspit wrote. Also, while Sharon delegated authority and stepped in only on important matters, Olmert is "the exact opposite. He wants to know everything. He decides everything."

But Israelis are divided over whether Sharon's continued presence in office would have changed history. The primary disagreement is over whether he would have ordered an all-out assault on Lebanon in response to the capture of two Israeli soldiers, as Olmert did _ or whether the situation would have developed at all.

Confidant Raanan Gissin felt Sharon's aura would have deterred Palestinian militants and Hezbollah guerrillas in Lebanon from provoking Israel.

"He himself was a deterrent element in Israel's strategic posture," said Gissin, Sharon's former spokesman. "They respected him, they feared him in the Arab world."

But others contend the region's fundamental problems would be much the same if Sharon were still in charge.

Sharon, now 78, left the political stage at the pinnacle of a long and contentious career.

Vilified in the Arab world for his harsh military reprisals, his role in Israel's first war in Lebanon in the 1980s and years of supporting Jewish settlements in the West Bank, Sharon underwent a political transformation late in his career and led Israel out of Gaza in 2005.

The move won international praise, and Sharon was cruising toward re-election when he suffered his stroke.

While Israelis debate Sharon's legacy, there is little disagreement that he would have handled the summer war in Lebanon more prudently. In fact, the war might not have even taken place, said David Kimche, a former Foreign Ministry director and deputy chief of the Mossad spy agency.

Olmert launched the war just hours after Hezbollah guerrillas killed three soldiers and captured two others in a cross-border raid.

Sharon "would not have jumped into the war in Lebanon after a short debate," Kimche said. "He would have waited, he would have asked many questions ... Therefore the war would have been different, if there had been a war at all."

Shlomo Brom, a former military strategy chief, said Sharon also wouldn't have made Olmert's mistake of setting sweeping objectives, like crushing Hezbollah and recovery of the captured soldiers. Israel's 34-day offensive failed to achieve either goal. More than 1,000 people died in the fighting, according to U.N., Israeli and Lebanese officials, including 159 Israelis.

"I imagine Sharon could not have avoided responding with a tough military strike," Brom said. "But I think he would have managed it better and not let it go on as long as it did and get as complicated as it did. He would have set more realistic objectives and wound it up more quickly."

Continuing violence in Gaza also has complicated Olmert's troubles, and sparked a heated debate about whether the Gaza withdrawal was worthwhile. Nonstop rocket fire from Gaza, the capture of an Israeli soldier by Gaza militants, and an ensuing Israeli military campaign laid bare the shortcomings of Sharon's unilateral approach.

Brom said relations with the Palestinians would not have evolved significantly differently under Sharon.

"The underlying problems wouldn't have been different," Brom said. "I think the deterioration in Gaza was expected after the withdrawal, in the absence of a political process."