The Germans call it “die Flucht nach vorne” — escaping forward. When the situation is desperate, attack! Instead of retreating, advance!
When there is no way out, storm ahead! This method was successful in 1948. At the end of May, the Egyptian Army was advancing on Tel Aviv. We — a very, very thin line of soldiers — were all that stood in its way. So we attacked. Again and again and again. We suffered heavy losses. But we stopped the Egyptian advance.
Now Ehud Olmert is applying the same method. His situation is desperate. Most people in Israel do not doubt that he has received large bribes in envelopes stuffed with dollars. The attorney general is liable to indict him any time, and this will compel him to resign.
And lo and behold, at the most critical moment, just before the most damning details come out, a joint statement is issued simultaneously in Jerusalem, Damascus and Ankara, announcing the start of peace negotiations between Israel and Syria, with Turkey acting as mediator. The talks will be based on the principles of the 1991 Madrid Conference, meaning the return of the entire Golan Heights.
Wow!!!
In this, too, Olmert is the worthy pupil of his predecessor and mentor, Ariel Sharon.
Sharon was up to his neck in corruption affairs. In one of them, the so-called “Greek Island affair”, the Israeli millionaire David Appel paid huge sums to Sharon’s son, a novice, for “advice”. At the time, too, it seemed that the attorney general could not possibly avoid issuing an indictment.
Sharon’s response was sheer genius: The Separation. Separation from the Gaza Strip. Separation from the attorney general.
The separation, which was carried out without any dialogue with the Palestinians, has turned the whole of the Gaza Strip into a ticking bomb, and now Ehud Olmert has to negotiate a cease-fire. For Sharon, though, the entire exercise was a success. If he had not suffered a stroke, he would still be prime minister today.
The lesson did not escape Olmert.
Conventional wisdom has it that to make peace, one needs a strong leader. Now it appears that the opposite also works: That a weak leader, almost submerged in troubles, whose term in office could come to a sudden end at any moment and whose coalition stands on feet of clay, a leader who has nothing to lose — he too may risk all to make peace.
The plot may move on from here in several possible directions.
The first possibility: Olmert will just stretch the negotiations out like bubble gum, as he has been doing with the Palestinians, and wait for the storm to blow over.
It will be difficult for him to do so, because Turkey is now a partner in the game. Whatever comes of it, Olmert’s agreement to conduct negotiations based on the return of all the Golan is an important step forward.
The second possibility: Olmert really means it. For his own reasons, he will conduct negotiations “in good faith”, as he undertook this week, and reach an agreement. In the country, a wild campaign of incitement will be launched against him. The Knesset will fall apart, new elections will be held, Olmert will again head the Kadima list and win as peacemaker.
Alternatively: he will lose those elections. But he will leave the scene in an honorable cause, not thrown out for his own corruption, but sacrificing himself on the altar of peace.
Alternatively: The attorney general will indict him in spite of everything, he will resign but go home with head held high as a leader who has taken a historic step.
A pertinent question: If Olmert has indeed decided to “escape forwards” why escape forwards towards peace and not toward war? Here there are two possibilities:
The first: Olmert has really become a man of peace. The second: Olmert believes that the Israeli public prefers peace with Syria to war with Syria.
The third: Olmert knows that all the chiefs of the Security Establishment (with the notable exception of the Mossad boss) support peace with Syria out of cold strategic calculation.
Syria is a Sunni country. The alliance between secular Sunni Syria and orthodox Shiite Iran is a marriage of convenience, without an ideological basis. The alliance with Shiite Hezbullah is also based on interests.
all this happens without the US. This, too, has its precedents: The Sadat initiative of 1977 matured behind the backs of the Americans. During his visit to Jerusalem a few days ago, Bush railed against talking with enemies. And Bush is not finished yet. He has got eight more months to go, and he, too, may come to the conclusion that he should “escape forward”. In his case: By attacking Iran.
How is all this going to affect the mother of all problems, the core of the Israeli-Arab conflict: the question of Palestine?
A separate peace harbors great dangers for the Palestinians. If the Israeli government reaches a peace agreement with Syria (and then Lebanon), it will have peace with all the neighboring states. The Palestinians will be isolated and the Israeli government will be able to deal with them as it wishes.
As against this danger, there is a positive prospect: That after the evacuation of the Golan, there will be increased pressure, from inside and outside, to reach peace with the Palestinians, too, at long last.
The Golan settlers are far more popular in Israel than their West Bank counterparts. While the Ofra and Hebron settlers are viewed as religious fanatics, whose crazy behavior is quite alien to the Israeli character, the settlers of the Golan are seen as “people like us”. The more so, since they were sent there by the Labor Party. If the Golan settlers are evacuated, it will be much easier to deal with the “Judea and Samaria” crowd.
Being at peace with all Arab states, the Israeli public may feel more secure, and therefore more willing to take risks in making peace with the Palestinian people.
The international atmosphere will also change. If the “Axis of Evil” fantasy disappears together with George Bush, and a new American leadership makes a serious effort to achieve peace, optimism will again dare to raise its battered head. Some people dream about a partnership of Barack Obama and Tzipi Livni.
All this belongs to the future. In the meantime we have a weak Olmert, who needs a powerful initiative. In the Biblical legend, the hero Samson killed a young lion, and when he returned to it, “behold, there was a swarm of bees and honey in the carcase.” Samson put forth a riddle unto the Philistines: “Out of the strong came forth sweetness”, and nobody was able to solve it (Judges, 14).
Now we can well ask: “Will the weak bring forth sweetness?”
