Israel under Ehud Olmert is not what it was under Ariel Sharon, at least in tone. Sharon was a soldier who spent much of his life fighting the Arabs. Olmert is a suave corporate lawyer, a deal maker, a political operator. Sharon supported the "Greater Israel" movement. Olmert's idea of Israel is not the replay of a biblical vision but a secular modern state with a booming economy, integrated into global commerce and closely linked to Europe. This does not mesh well with what God and Abraham discussed in the Bronze Age. Sharon spoke of a long and difficult struggle. Olmert says Israelis are "tired of war, tired of being victors."[1] When he speaks, as he often does, of two states, Palestine and Israel, the hard-liners are full of rage.You can already see where this is heading. Despite the contrary evidence (see here and here) Elon's view is based in part on the assumption that there is a demographic time bomb ticking:
Meron Benvenisti, one of the very few who years ago foresaw the way things have gone, points out in Son of the Cypresses: Memories, Reflections, and Regrets from a Political Life, his new, very courageous book, that within a decade, even within the old 1967 borders, Arab Israelis may already make up as much as 25 percent of the population. He writes:Pragmatic? Sometimes a leader who is uncharismatic and not flamboyant really is just a weak leader. Or is perhaps simply in a rut--one does not have to be a right winger to be stuck in a particular way of thinking. Olmert seems genuinely influenced by the demographic threat:The attempt to fight the "demographic threat" by dragging more and more new immigrants from every remote corner on earth has been carried to absurd extremes.... The time has come to declare that the Zionist revolution is over.Nahum Goldman, the former head of the World Jewish Congress, used to say that the political standoff between the Israelis and the Palestinians was postponing the inevitable for as long as possible. The outcome described by Benvenisti is not in sight but it's probably a good thing that Arafat and Sharon have been replaced by Olmert and Abbas—two less charismatic, less flamboyant, more pragmatic men.
I had a long background talk with Olmert recently and came away impressed by his pragmatism and by the absence of the pious solemnity that was characteristic of several of his predecessors. Dire demographic forecasts that the Palestinians would soon be the majority in Greater Israel seem to have had a part in his change of heart. The "demographic danger" is now talked about in Israel as if it was an impending plague. Olmert does not want Israel to become a binational state. The two sides must separate. He suspects that Israel may have lost previous opportunities to make peace, in Oslo and at Camp David. What may still have been possible then is no longer possible now. Still, he feels that another opportunity may now be at hand, and he does not want to miss it too. He firmly believes in the two-state solution. Indeed, he now sounds almost like former president Jimmy Carter in his recent book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid (for which Carter was accused of anti-Semitism).Elon concludes about Olmert's following a different path from Sharon:
Olmert at first endorsed it but then changed course and resolved to try to find a negotiated solution agreed upon by both sides. Many of those who have talked to him, as I have, believe he means it. Whether, at this late stage, he is strong enough to make good on his words is another question.But a consistent question never fully addressed is what does it matter what Olmert really means and what difference does it make how able he is to make good on his words unless Israel can be truly confident about what Abbas really means to do and whether he is strong enough to make good.
Elon begins his piece describing Olmert as 'a suave corporate lawyer'--a description far more fitting of Olmert's ability to avoid the consequences of his disapproval ratings than of his negotiations with Abbas.
No comments:
Post a Comment