Perhaps not surprisingly, an interview which the soon-to-be ex PM Olmert gave to an Israeli newspaper acknowledging that he has been wrong the last years in relation to the West Bank, Jerusalem and the Palestinians, has gained little media attention.
The NY Times editorialises about what is obviously a belated epiphany by Olmert - but reality kicking in:
"Ehud Olmert, Israel’s soon to be ex-prime minister, voiced some startling truths this week. He said that in exchange for peace, Israel should withdraw from “almost all” of the West Bank and share its capital city, Jerusalem, with the Palestinians. He also said that as part of a negotiated peace deal with Syria, Israel should be ready to give up the Golan Heights.
It’s frustrating that Mr. Olmert, who is stepping down as prime minister after being accused of corruption, waited so long to say these things. And it is tragic that he did not do more to act on those beliefs when he had real power.
His statements in a farewell interview with the newspaper Yediot Ahronoth were unlike anything any Israeli political leader had dared to say — at least publicly — before. He also dismissed as “megalomania” any suggestion that Israel should act by itself to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.
There always has been far too wide a gap between Mr. Olmert’s belief that Israel’s security and demographic survival depends on a two-state solution and what he has been willing to do to get such a deal. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, also has not shown nearly enough political courage. The result is that while the two men have been negotiating since the American-led Annapolis peace conference last fall, very little progress has been made."
Meanwhile, Forward addresses the very same issue:
"It is a rule of thumb in democracies that lame duck leaders should steer clear of bold new initiatives and sharp turns of policy. They’re supposed to sit tight until their elected successors can settle in and take the wheel. A decent respect for the opinions of the electorate demands that the voters’ decisions be honored, including the decision to repudiate an incumbent. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s outgoing prime minister, broke that rule September 29. And rightly so.
Olmert had resigned from his post a week earlier, chased from office by persistent corruption charges. He then became a caretaker prime minister, required to stay on until a new chief executive is sworn in. And yet, just days after resigning, in a dramatic newspaper interview on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, Olmert announced a historic turn in Israeli foreign policy. He vowed to spend his remaining days on the job pursuing his newly declared objective.
Breaking with every past Israeli leader, Olmert declared that Israel must give up control of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and virtually the entire West Bank if it hopes to achieve peace with its neighbors. He insisted that Israel currently is as strong as it has ever been — militarily, economically, diplomatically — and can afford to take risks. Haggling endlessly over an extra hill here or an extra kilometer of strategic depth there does little for Israel’s security in an age of long-range missiles, he said. He warned that the current Palestinian leadership might very soon be replaced by something far more intractable if Palestinians aren’t shown concrete gains. And he warned that the alternative to sweeping concessions is continuing tension and likely war."
The NY Times editorialises about what is obviously a belated epiphany by Olmert - but reality kicking in:
"Ehud Olmert, Israel’s soon to be ex-prime minister, voiced some startling truths this week. He said that in exchange for peace, Israel should withdraw from “almost all” of the West Bank and share its capital city, Jerusalem, with the Palestinians. He also said that as part of a negotiated peace deal with Syria, Israel should be ready to give up the Golan Heights.
It’s frustrating that Mr. Olmert, who is stepping down as prime minister after being accused of corruption, waited so long to say these things. And it is tragic that he did not do more to act on those beliefs when he had real power.
His statements in a farewell interview with the newspaper Yediot Ahronoth were unlike anything any Israeli political leader had dared to say — at least publicly — before. He also dismissed as “megalomania” any suggestion that Israel should act by itself to destroy Iran’s nuclear program.
There always has been far too wide a gap between Mr. Olmert’s belief that Israel’s security and demographic survival depends on a two-state solution and what he has been willing to do to get such a deal. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, also has not shown nearly enough political courage. The result is that while the two men have been negotiating since the American-led Annapolis peace conference last fall, very little progress has been made."
Meanwhile, Forward addresses the very same issue:
"It is a rule of thumb in democracies that lame duck leaders should steer clear of bold new initiatives and sharp turns of policy. They’re supposed to sit tight until their elected successors can settle in and take the wheel. A decent respect for the opinions of the electorate demands that the voters’ decisions be honored, including the decision to repudiate an incumbent. Ehud Olmert, Israel’s outgoing prime minister, broke that rule September 29. And rightly so.
Olmert had resigned from his post a week earlier, chased from office by persistent corruption charges. He then became a caretaker prime minister, required to stay on until a new chief executive is sworn in. And yet, just days after resigning, in a dramatic newspaper interview on the eve of Rosh Hashanah, Olmert announced a historic turn in Israeli foreign policy. He vowed to spend his remaining days on the job pursuing his newly declared objective.
Breaking with every past Israeli leader, Olmert declared that Israel must give up control of East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and virtually the entire West Bank if it hopes to achieve peace with its neighbors. He insisted that Israel currently is as strong as it has ever been — militarily, economically, diplomatically — and can afford to take risks. Haggling endlessly over an extra hill here or an extra kilometer of strategic depth there does little for Israel’s security in an age of long-range missiles, he said. He warned that the current Palestinian leadership might very soon be replaced by something far more intractable if Palestinians aren’t shown concrete gains. And he warned that the alternative to sweeping concessions is continuing tension and likely war."
Comments