NationStates Jolt Archive

Outgoing Israeli PM seems to have had a drastic change of heart recently...

...or maybe he just feels free to express his views now that he's on his way out.

Israel will have to give up "almost all" of the West Bank areas it occupies and accept the division of Jerusalem in order to take advantage of a rapidly closing window of opportunity for peace with the Arabs, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published Monday.

"The decision we are going to have to make is a decision we have been refusing for 40 years to look at open-eyed," the Israeli leader told the Yediot Aharonot newspaper. "The time has come to say these things. The time has come to put them on the table."

"I am the first who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the entire city," said Olmert, a former mayor of Jerusalem, noting that he opposed the 1978 Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt. "For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at the reality in all its depth."

It is unclear what impact Olmert's statements will have, since he is most likely in the final weeks of his administration.

But they offered a telling portrait of Israeli political life and the constraints facing prime ministers who must constantly hedge their views on land-for-peace deals and especially on Jerusalem to maintain their governing coalitions.

Since it became clear more than a month ago that he would have to resign, Olmert has charted an increasingly leftist course in a country where right and left are often defined by how much land one is willing to cede to the Palestinians.

Seemingly freed from the pressure of courting the right-wing vote, Olmert has spoken out harshly against violence committed by Jewish settlers in the West Bank. After a prominent leftist professor and author was injured by a bomb left outside his home, Olmert warned Sunday of "an evil wind of extremism" sweeping through Israel.

In the interview published Monday, conducted the day after his Sept. 21 resignation, he said Israel must "withdraw from the lion's share of the territories."
LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-olmert30-2008sep30,0,594568.story)

A new dynamic has emerged in the West Bank: Jewish settlers block roads, burn tires or set fire to Palestinian fields when troops try to dismantle unauthorized settlements.

Activists call the tactic "price tag." They hope the havoc will deter Israeli security forces from removing any of the dozens of squatter camps, or outposts, dotting West Bank hills.

Coupled with recent settler reprisal raids on Palestinian villages and a pipe bomb attack that wounded a prominent settler critic, the outpost battle has revived debate about the dangers posed by ultra-nationalists.

Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned Sunday that an "evil wind of extremism" is threatening Israel's democracy. Without naming any specific group, he complained that extremists are undermining "the ability of those in charge in Israel to make decisions."
AP (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD93FUPU80)

"A bad wind of extremism, hate, evil, violence and contempt for state authorities is blowing through certain sectors of the Israeli public and threatening Israeli democracy," said Olmert in his opening remarks to the weekly cabinet meeting.

Olmert said the police and the Shin Bet, Israel's security service, were searching for members of the movement.

Olmert compared the attack on Prof Zeev Sternhell, a political scientist at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, to the 1995 assassination of the then prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, by a Jewish ultranationalist, and to a hand grenade attack that killed a Peace Now activist in 1983.

Sternhell, a vocal opponent of Israel's settlements in the West Bank and a Holocaust survivor, was wounded when assailants planted a small pipe bomb outside his Jerusalem home.

Police also found posters in Sternhell's neighbourhood offering one million shekels (£159,000) to anyone who killed a member of Israel's Peace Now movement, which also opposes Jewish settlements.

The attack on Sternhell follows numerous reports from Israeli human rights groups that the settlers' use of violence against Palestinians and Israeli police and soldiers, who are charged with protecting the illegal colonists, is growing.

Yesterday police were investigating the latest alleged attack by settlers against a Palestinian.

The body of a 19-year-old Palestinian shepherd was found in a ravine, with 20 gunshots to his neck, in a remote area of the West Bank on the weekend.
The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/29/israelandthepalestinians.middleeast)

Do you think this will help? Will anybody be listen? I doubt it. This may or may not be an attempt by Olmert to leave with a legacy of "At least I tried!" but he's so weakened that I doubt anyone will care.

So it'll probably be business as usual when Tzipi Livni takes the reigns...

They love their little wars in the middle east - I can gurentee you nothing will change.

yeah, I don't expect the religious extremists on either side of the battle give a rats ass about or even understand the concepts of compassion and compromise.

There are large numbers of Israelis and Palestinians that do and are willing to work with each other.

It's just like what they were talking about on The Daily Show last night with Iran. The leaders play to the extreme right wing religious fanatics to get support for their pet conflicts. It's no different in Israel, Palestine or the U.S.

Do you think this will help? Will anybody be listen? I doubt it. This may or may not be an attempt by Olmert to leave with a legacy of "At least I tried!" but he's so weakened that I doubt anyone will care.

So it'll probably be business as usual when Tzipi Livni takes the reigns...


Yep. Sad, really.

I think that illustrates Israeli politics nicely (and the same presumably goes for Palestinian politics too).

You can have perfectly reasonable people, who can see what needs to be done and would be happy to do it, but they're so locked into a web of contacts, lobbyists and pollsters that they're stuck pushing a line that they know won't get them there. In Palestine's case, the attempt to be more reasonable got the PA get kicked out of Gaza, in Israel it would get you removed from office.

Hence, what I've been saying for some time still holds: both sides need proper leadership figures before anything starts moving.

I'm guessing that Olmert's comments pretty much reflect where he thinks the peace talks got up to when the Knesset sacked him. I'm sure that Tzipi Livni will study his words carefully but for the average iIsraeli and Palestinian on the street, it's probably back to square one for peace negotiators. And yes, Neu-L, people will be waiting for a new US President, to see if Tzipi Livni's hold on the Knesset is secure and that Hamas is prepared to work with Al Fatah and Israel.
A pretty tall order - don't hold your breath. But hey! It's a New Year in Israel.
Shana Tovah and shalom!

It is seriously significant that he speaks of giving up parts of the Jerusalem Zone, which is where most of the current settlement activity occurs. The settlers who move deep into the West Bank, planting "outposts" where they're not supposed to and defying the army to oust them, then getting into fist-fights and knife-fights with the local Palestinians, are increasingly alienated from the larger society-- but the Jerusalem "suburbs" like Maaleh Adumim and Har Homa have been viewed by many Israelis as just normal places to move to, and that will be more difficult to reverse. Evacuating the Hebron settlers would be an emotional and violent business; but shedding east Jerusalem would be just plain monetarily expensive.

It is seriously significant that he speaks of giving up parts of the Jerusalem Zone, which is where most of the current settlement activity occurs. The settlers who move deep into the West Bank, planting "outposts" where they're not supposed to and defying the army to oust them, then getting into fist-fights and knife-fights with the local Palestinians, are increasingly alienated from the larger society-- but the Jerusalem "suburbs" like Maaleh Adumim and Har Homa have been viewed by many Israelis as just normal places to move to, and that will be more difficult to reverse. Evacuating the Hebron settlers would be an emotional and violent business; but shedding east Jerusalem would be just plain monetarily expensive.

I guess the question is: What is LASTING peace worth? Will the deal result in lasting peace. Camp David did with Israel and Egypt.

Peace in the Middle East? In our lifetime?:fluffle:

There may be enough sheer weariness on both sides.

Baruch hashem! - Insh' Allah!

Hail Lucifer!

There have been rumors that a withdrawal is something that Olmert has had very close to his heart for a long time. That much of what he did in the realm of foreign policy was merely an attempt to bolster his domestic position, to convince his constituents that the regional security was stable enough to pull it off. It was widely rumored within the national security community that the primary reason for the Lebanon War was, not, as a practice run for a war on Iran, as was rumored, but, as an attempt to secure the Lebanese flank to make a withdrawal from the Golan Heights and the West Bank domestically palatable.

I have extended family in Israel and one of my cousins said flat out he'd love to see Olmert become the victim of a lynch mob. He also said if he loves the Arabs so much he should go join them, at least then he'd be an honest traitor.

Needless to say, Olmert is not a popular one amongst many Israelis and I can understand why.

Personally, I think this will only make the Arabs grow bolder. Israel is a small country as it is, it needs to be ruthless in defending what land it has... It doesn't need to start handing land over.

Hey! There are some really really crazy Zionists out there - and a lot of them seem to have American accents. On TV they come across as hysterical racists.
Israeli leaders who talk of "land for peace" are quickly targetted by these lunatic zealots.

Rest in Peace Yitzak Rabin - one whom the Right-wing literally targetted. Rot in hell the assassin - Yigal Amir

Personally, I think this will only make the Arabs grow bolder. Israel is a small country as it is, it needs to be ruthless in defending what land it has... It doesn't need to start handing land over.

Yes, because taking land and being ruthless has made them so popular up to now.....

Nodina's reference to ruthlessness and being popular was an ironic juxtaposition Rathanan. I hope that you didn't think that I was attacking you personally. I just get so despairing at those who give nothing and then loudly claim that they are the only side that want peace.
Peace in the Middle East can only come about by forgiving (but not forgetting), by compromise and working together.
Any side that talks of pushing one side into the sea or expanding borders like the messianic settlers clearly do not want peace. What they hope for is conquest.
Also, I hint on how to tell if you are falling into the trap of objectifying your opponent, "Everytime you say your opponent's nationality and then generalise about them, substitute your own and listen to how it sounds."
Again, shalom and salaam!

Yes, because taking land and being ruthless has made them so popular up to now.....

I never said take land, I said keep what they have. Survival isn't necessarly a popularity contest, if that were true many countries in the middle east as a whole would fail miserably. Peace in the Middle East (or the whole world, for that matter) is about as feesable as turning all of Lake Michigan into Kool-Aid.

For the record, I don't hate Arabs, either... In fact, it's quite the contrary, I rather like them. All of them I've met (save one or two) are very nice and hospitiable individuals (and their coffee is awesome). Heck, one of my best friends is from Saudi Arabia, but it's just understood that we don't bring up Israeli/Arabic conflicts. I do not think, however, that the Palestinian leaders have acted in a way that merits any sort of nicities from the Israeli government.

The simple truth is, this issue hits home for me. I just don't like the possiblity of my extended family being forced out of their homes by the IDF because the Israeli PM gave the area they live in to the Palestinians. It's easy to applaud an action when it doesn't effect you or your family.

I never said take land, I said keep what they have. Survival isn't necessarly a popularity contest, if that were true many countries in the middle east as a whole would fail miserably. Peace in the Middle East (or the whole world, for that matter) is about as feesable as turning all of Lake Michigan into Kool-Aid.

For the record, I don't hate Arabs, either... In fact, it's quite the contrary, I rather like them. All of them I've met (save one or two) are very nice and hospitiable individuals (and their coffee is awesome). Heck, one of my best friends is from Saudi Arabia, but it's just understood that we don't bring up Israeli/Arabic conflicts. I do not think, however, that the Palestinian leaders have acted in a way that merits any sort of nicities from the Israeli government.

The simple truth is, this issue hits home for me. I just don't like the possiblity of my extended family being forced out of their homes by the IDF because the Israeli PM gave the area they live in to the Palestinians. It's easy to applaud an action when it doesn't effect you or your family.


You're in favour of keeping land that they have taken (and settlements are still being expanded iirc). I suspect that the situation you describe at the end happened to palestinian families during settlement.

The simple truth is, this issue hits home for me. I just don't like the possiblity of my extended family being forced out of their homes by the IDF because the Israeli PM gave the area they live in to the Palestinians. It's easy to applaud an action when it doesn't effect you or your family.
An even more important truth is that sometimes it's worth it. When my grandparents were forced out of East Prussia, that sucked for them. Quite a lot more than Israeli settlers might expect to witness should the IDF move them out.

And yet, given that the alternative to them just making their peace with that is continuing antipathy and perhaps future wars, we're all better off because this happened to them and they learned to live with it.

Israel is in exactly the same situation. It has massive internal problems, it's quite a corrupt state with huge poverty figures, ethnic tensions and is lagging in economic terms. The reason for this is its inability to normalise relations with its neighbours. Giving too much one-sidedly and not getting a return is not a good option if it doesn't buy them security. But a continuing, multi-party peace process is in Israel's interest, and if a final settlement means removing settlers from land they ultimately shouldn't have gone to in the first place (let's face it, the reason settlers go to these towns is either because they're religious nuts, or because the government subsidises them, knowing fully well that these places just aren't worth it on their own merit), then they'll have to bite the bullet.

I never said take land, I said keep what they have. .


Theres what they have, and theres whats theirs. The latter they are entitled to, the rest is tough shit. Anything outside the 67 borders is not Israeli territory. It is conceivable that land inside those borders might be swapped for some land outside it, in which case your extended family will pay for the crimes of the settler movement - a most unfortunate turn of events.


I just don't like the possiblity of my extended family being forced out of their homes by the IDF because the Israeli PM gave the area they live in to the Palestinians. .

If they are outside Israels 1967 borders, they are essentially on land thats theirs by dint of somebody else being forced out. If they are in Arab East Jerusalem, the Arab population is being forced out in a slow-drip fashion, to allow they and their neighbours claim the whole area as "Israeli". Thus, depending on where they are, I either have some sympathy, or none whatsoever.....

Personally, I think this will only make the Arabs grow bolder. Israel is a small country as it is, it needs to be ruthless in defending what land it has... It doesn't need to start handing land over.

Well, it was their land in the first place...

It's sort of a similar impact if Bush came out and said, "You know, I was totally wrong about Iraq and all. Kept refusing to look at reality open-eyed."

I think that illustrates Israeli politics nicely (and the same presumably goes for Palestinian politics too).

You can have perfectly reasonable people, who can see what needs to be done and would be happy to do it, but they're so locked into a web of contacts, lobbyists and pollsters that they're stuck pushing a line that they know won't get them there. In Palestine's case, the attempt to be more reasonable got the PA get kicked out of Gaza, in Israel it would get you removed from office.

Hence, what I've been saying for some time still holds: both sides need proper leadership figures before anything starts moving.

This is true - I must add (even though you're not claiming anything to the contrary) that Olmert got removed from office due to his corruption, and only spoke out about his change of heart after it was clear that he was dead politically...

It's a messy affair.

Baruch hashem! - Insh' Allah!

Thank God- hebrew

God will it- Arabic..


What are you trying to get across here?:confused:

Thank God- hebrew

God will it- Arabic..


What are you trying to get across here?:confused:

It may make more sense if you look at the context:

Peace in the Middle East? In our lifetime?

There may be enough sheer weariness on both sides.

Baruch hashem! - Insh' Allah!

It's funny and sad in that 'god protect me from your followers' way.

Thank God- hebrew

Actually, "baruch" literally means "bless."

(I'm not entirely sure as to the verb conjugation, but I'm sure I have the verb right.)

Actually, "baruch" literally means "bless."

(I'm not entirely sure as to the verb conjugation, but I'm sure I have the verb right.)

It's closer to 'blessed', so 'baruch hashem' translates to something like 'blessed is the name', where 'the name' refers to God. It's pretty much thanking God for whatever it might have supposedly done, or thanking it in the hopes that it'll bless you in return.

Thanks o learned translators. I equate Baruch hashem and Insh' Allah as an empreachment to the almighty (in this case fro shalom/salaam). I was also alluding to the point that the similarities between Jewish and Islamic culture are greater than the differences)
Interestingly racist and neo-nazi groups in Australia have been focussing on provoking Islamic groups ("terrorist towel-heads" and that sort of thing) Why? Because they know that the more they antagonise Muslims in the community the more it creates the sorts of ethnic tensions that they can exploit. They also know that when Jews and Arabs fight each other, both sides lose. So how do we fight all these right wing groups with hate on their agendas?
It is learning and love that's gonna do it guys.
We are closer to peace than we think.