Well, I’ll be. Ehud Olmert may be becoming a realist in his old age (politically speaking that is). He’s even telling the neocon Jerusalem Post that Israel needs to start thinking seriously about returning to 1967 borders and dividing Jerusalem. What a change from Sharon, his one-time mentor, who sputtered endlessly about “the Holy city, Israel’s eternal, undivided capital.”
…The prime minister said many rival Israeli political parties remain “detached from the reality” that requires Israel to compromise “on parts of Eretz Yisrael” in order to maintain its Jewish, democratic nature.If Israel “will have to deal with a reality of one state for two peoples,” he said, this “could bring about the end of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. That is a danger one cannot deny; it exists, and is even realistic.”
…”What will be if we don’t want to separate?” he asked rhetorically. “Will we live eternally in a confused reality where 50 percent of the population or more are residents but not equal citizens who have the right to vote like us? My job as prime minister, more than anything else, is to ensure that doesn’t happen.”
The reality in which Israel was seeking an accommodation, he elaborated, includes a situation in which even “the world that is friendly to Israel… that really supports Israel, when it speaks of the future, it speaks of Israel in terms of the ’67 borders. It speaks of the division of Jerusalem.”
But don’t get too excited if you thought Olmert was changing his spots. He still believes that Israel’s biggest settlement expansion, the one which will doom a future Palestinian state and virtually cut it off from Jerusalem, Maaleh Adumim, is entirely within the spirit of a peace agreement.
At the same time, he made clear that he did not envisage a permanent accord along the ’67 lines, describing Ma’aleh Adumim as an “indivisible” part of Jerusalem and Israel.
…Olmert said he considered Ma’aleh Adumim to be “an indivisible part of Jerusalem and the State of Israel. I don’t think when people are talking about settlements they are talking about Ma’aleh Adumim.”
So if I understand him accurately, then most of Israel’s pragmatic friends foresee an agreement along the 67 borders. But he, despite being an Israeli realist, sees something different and somehow thinks that Israel’s “friends” will go along with his vision. Why?? Will they accept less than half a loaf simply because he tells them that’s all the Palestinians can rightfully expect?
I believe Olmert also makes a fateful blunder when he attempts to read Abbas’ mind regarding the Right of Return:
Olmert stressed that he would never accept a Palestinian “right of return” to Israel.
He said he was convinced, too, that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas “has made the choice in his heart” between clinging to the “myth of the ‘right of return'” and the opportunity to establish a Palestinian state where all Palestinians, refugees included, would live.
“My impression is that he wants peace with Israel, and accepts Israel as Israel defines itself,” Olmert said. “If you ask him to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does. That is not insignificant. It is perhaps not enough, but it is not insignificant.”
Isn’t it always interesting when one enemy becomes foolish enough to read into the other’s heart sentiments he wishes the other held, but doesn’t necessarily. That makes for potential huge levels of frustration and delusion. If Olmert thinks that Abbas has given up on the Right of Return he’s a total idiot. And I know that Olmert is not an idiot. This is a certain amount of public pandering for the Israeli voter. Olmert knows, I think, that he’s going to have to give on this issue and hopefully he is prepared to engage it in some serious way even if he’s not prepared to grant Palestinians everything they wish on this score. If not, then Olmert is just wasting everybody’s time.
It’s also laughable that the devoutly secular Olmert sees the “hand of God” in the line-up of leaders who are supportive of Israeli interests on the world stage:
Indeed, said the prime minister, there was currently an almost divinely ordained constellation of key personalities on the international stage favorably disposed to Israel, creating comfortable conditions for negotiations that might never be replicated.
“It’s a coincidence that is almost ‘the hand of God,'” Olmert said, “that Bush is president of the United States, that Nicolas Sarkozy is the president of France, that Angela Merkel is the chancellor of Germany, that Gordon Brown is the prime minister of England and that the special envoy to the Middle East is Tony Blair.”
The imperative, he said, was to make every effort for progress while this array of supportive characters remained in place.
“What possible combination,” he asked, “could be more comfortable for the State of Israel?”
Why don’t we just leave God out of this? Hasn’t this sort of thing gotten us into enough trouble in the Middle East? And a lot of good “God’s hand” will do him if he doesn’t produce. Having all those pro-Israel figures pushing Israel’s agenda won’t be worth a damn unless he offers the Palestinians something they can accept. Most Israeli leaders labor under the delusion that if they can wrap a U.S. president around their little finger that they can pretend to be interested in peace while doing nothing to achieve it (Sharon was like this in many ways except for the Gaza disengagement). I understand the above quotation in that context and it doesn’t bode well.
But as I said, I see Olmert as an opportunistic realist. I think he does want to make peace with the Palestinians though I’m not sure he has sufficient vision and fortitude to get there. But it is entirely possible he does. And I wish him well, though with no small amount of doubt in my mind about whether he can.
I discuss the history of Jewish attitudes to Jerusalem in Gary Rosenblatt: Noah Feldman and the Confrontation of American with Jewish or Zionist Values.
I’m guessing that Olmert may be getting pressure from some pockets of the American Jewish community that are fed up with Israel dragging its feet on a viable two-state solution. Any indications of this from your sources?
Israel is not only opening up to a two-state resolution, it is also interested in peace talks with other Muslim countries….
“Following a softening of the Bush administration’s opposition to Israeli-Syrian contacts, the Israeli government is actively exploring the possibility of reopening negotiations with Syria, according to Israeli sources and a senior Republican lawmaker who visited Damascus last week……”
Sorry, forgot to post the source of the Israeli-Syrian peace talk article:
http://www.forward.com/articles/12392/
DP: Gee, I don’t know about American Jewish leaders pressuring Olmert. If anyone’s pressuring him it’s Condi. The only American Jews who would pressure him in a positive way would be the peace forces like Israel Policy Forum, etc. & I doubt they can muster much in the way of pressure. But it would be nice to think that some of the mainstream leaders WERE fed up & clamoring for change in Israeli policy. Would that it were so (& maybe it is–who knows).
Richard, you are quite right to say that Abbas will not give up the “right of return”. However, in an earlier thread, you stated that you want a “partial” or “limited” return ( I don’t recall which term you used). The Palestinians can rightfully ask you “who are you to determine which Palestinians can return and which can’t if they ALL have an inherent right to return”. Either such a right exists or it doesn’t exist. Allowing only 100,000 or 500,000 is not going to assuage them. You know that. And once Israel agrees to recognize ANY form of “right of return”, then Israeli itself is admitting that its creation is a historic crime, as Abbas said on last Naqba Day (“the creation of the state of Israel is the greatest crime in the history of mankind”). I think you are the one who is not being realistic and it is patronizing for you or any other non-Palestinian to dictate terms to them, if you believe they are right.
I forgot to add that the article says Olmert talks about “dividing’ Jerusalem, not using the euphemism “sharing” which you and others have taken to using in order to make tearing the city apart sound more palatable. I don’t know what language the interview was in, but I do know NO ONE in Israel talks about “sharing” Jerusalem, they all say “halukat Yerushalayim” which means division, and “division” everyone knows means going back to the barbed wire, minefields, anti-sniper walls that existed before the Six-Day War. As late at 1999, both Labor and MERETZ officially opposed dividing the city, but Oslo has managed to convince at least part of the population that it is worth having terror, rocket attacks and violence directed the civilian population so long as this gives Israel the coveted title of “victim” which the Palestinians currently are monopolizing in “progressive” discourse.
I “know” no such thing. History is full of examples of intractable conflicts between sides who felt they had absolute non-negotiable rights which they later compromised over in order to resolve the conflict. That’s what will happen here. Sure, some Palestinians & their extreme supporters will never give up on an absolute Right of Return just as some settlers & Israeli nationalists will never give up on their maximalist demands. But they won’t block a resolution of the conflict.
And of course it is not patronizing for Israel to play a role in determining how many & who will return since the returnees will be returning to Israel & living under Israeli sovereignty. But the process will have to be mutual with both sides playing roles in outlining the process.
I do so enjoy those grand, sweeping presumptuous phrases like “everyone knows” when you really mean “I believe.” Barbed wire & minefields are YOUR vision, not mine. The real future when it comes will not look the way you paint it. Maybe it will not be a bed of roses or Gan Eden, but it will be considerably different. And within a number of years of a settlement there will be normal relations bet. Israel & the Palestinians & those features you note will be all but forgotten by everyone but the old timers like you & me.