Sometimes, something is said about you, and you are not quite sure whether to take it as a compliment or an insult.
Two prominent journalists, whom I respect very much, mentioned me in connection with the prime minister. Akiva Eldar of Haaretz asked last month about Ehud Olmert: “How to treat a son of the Fighting Family (a nickname of the Irgun, one of whose leaders was Olmert’s father) who sounds like Uri Avnery?” And this week Gideon Levy wrote in the same newspaper that Olmert “speaks like Uri Avnery, even if 40 years later.”
They refer, I assume, to the public demand I addressed 40 years ago to the then prime minister to enable the Palestinians to establish a Palestinian State in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, both of which had just been occupied by Israeli troops. I was then alone among the 120 members of the Knesset, and my weekly news magazine, Haolam Hazeh, was alone among the media in publishing the plan. Now Olmert says that the state of Israel will be lost if a Palestinian state is not set up in the framework of the Two-State Solution. Should I feel satisfaction? If the prime minister of Israel accepts the things you were saying 40 years (and also 60 years) ago, what could be better?
Of course, Olmert does not make these statements because my friends and I have convinced him. I have known him for 40 years, since his first steps in the public arena, and for most of that time we have been enemies. At the beginning he was the yeoman of Shmuel Tamir, who in 1967 coined the slogan “liberated territory will not be returned”. Later, as mayor of Jerusalem, he built settlements all over the place and deliberately provoked bloody clashes, like the infamous tunnel incident. But if he now feels the need to support a plan that is the opposite of everything he has advocated all his life, this testifies to the popularity of the idea. Our direct part in this may have been limited, but our indirect contribution was, perhaps, considerable. We have prepared public opinion. And in any case, the historic processes have developed the way we foresaw, and they have pushed the leadership of both sides in this direction.
This proves again that even if, on the surface, monstrous things are happening, underneath, in the depths of the national consciousness, rational and positive trends are gaining ground. It is a long and painful process, but in the end these ideas will prevail. But doubt is gnawing. Perhaps Olmert’s words are only illusion? Deception? Trickery?
Some people believe that the talk about the “core issues” and the “shelf-agreement before the end of 2008” are nothing but the sophisticated tactics of a shrewd politician who is in trouble. In two weeks time, the Winograd Commission will publish its final report on Lebanon War II, and Olmert may find himself in an impossible position. Demonstrators in the street will demand his dismissal. The Labor Party leader, Ehud Barak, will face the demand to resign, as he has promised, on the day the report is issued, and thus bring down the government.
In such a situation, a politician can do only one of two things: Start a war or run toward peace. Since the necessary conditions for a war seem not to be present at the moment, the only option left is a peace process. So Olmert becomes a man of peace, speaks the language of peace and makes peace moves.
Skeptics ask: Assuming that this will help Olmert to survive the crisis and remain prime minister with a stable coalition — will he then continue to move towards peace? Will he not use the first available pretext to put an end to it? Isn’t this indicated by his present behavior — not honoring the commitment to remove settlement outposts, intensifying building activity in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, continuing the blockade and the bloodshed in the Gaza Strip and refusing the Hamas offer for a cease-fire? In brief, one should not fall prey to hope. On the contrary, one should expose the real face of the prime minister who is exploiting our plan as a means of deception.
But even if this analysis looks reasonable, doesn’t it suffer from oversimplification? The most important political event of last week was the resignation of Avigdor Lieberman from the government. Lieberman is gone, but Shas remains.
Shas is a rightist-nationalist party, and needs a pretext for staying at the governmental trough. They declare that they will leave the moment the government starts talking with the Palestinians about Jerusalem. But in serious negotiations it will be impossible not to do so. The core issues are not separate — a concession on one issue must be answered with a matching concession on another issue. The continued presence of Shas in the government suggests a secret commitment by Olmert not to touch the core issues at all.
Either way — when weighting the possibilities, one must also remember that the declarations of a prime minister have a life of their own, whatever their intention. They cannot be returned to the mouth that uttered them. The words are engraved in the collective memory, they change the national consciousness. When Olmert says that the state of Israel is “lost” if a Palestinian state is not established next to it, this is a meaningful milestone.
Like the people on “reality” TV, Olmert’s first priority is to survive.
This must be taken into account in trying to guess whether he is serious when he talks our language, or if these are just empty words. Is this a “New Olmert”, has Saul indeed turned into Paul, or is this only the old Olmert in a fashionable new disguise? Is it possible that on top of all the tactical considerations, Olmert really wants to imprint his name on history with a great deed?
Back to the beginning: Should I be happy or furious when “Olmert sounds like Uri Avnery?”
I remember the words of Rudyard Kipling: “If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken / Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools...” Imitation is said to be the sincerest form of flattery, but it will take implementation to remove the lingering doubt.
