TPMCafe
« The End of the Long Reagan Era | Home | California voters favor same-sex marriage! »

Is Israel's Prime Minister Going Out on a High Note?

user-pic

Investigations into Israeli PM Ehud Olmert's predilection for cash-filled envelopes reached a new milestone today with the testimony of Morris Talansky. New York-based Talansky confirmed that he had "transferred Olmert some $150,000 over 15 years, and that Olmert had tried to aid a Talansky business venture", but that "he [Talansky] never had any personal benefits from this relationship whatsoever." As more information is made public in this case the pundit-class is increasingly adamant that Olmert will not be able to politically survive this storm.

Fairly or not, Ehud Olmert is likely to be tagged as Israel's most dishonest Prime Minister--yet in many ways he has been more honest to his public about Israel's regional predicament and the steps it needs to take than almost any of his predecessors. In his latest outpouring of home truths, Olmert yesterday told one of his detractors that anyone who believes that it's possible to hold onto the greater land of Israel, the territories captured in '67, is "delusional". With the resumption of talks with Syria last week, despite a distinct lack of enthusiasm from the Bush administration, it seems that Olmert maybe going out on a high and is leaving an interesting diplomatic legacy.

First a note of caution--it is not over yet for Olmert. Talansky will be cross-examined by Olmert's lawyers in July and the Prime Minister will try to struggle on and may even succeed. But that is increasingly unlikely. My friends high up in Kadima are telling me that this is over, Olmert's possible successors are revving up for a leadership campaign. The ultra-religious Shas party, sensing early elections, is threatening to quit the coalition, and the Labor party is as usual in disarray.

Ehud Olmert is obviously far from being a model Prime Minister. His mistakes are numerous and his arrogance legendary. The 33-day Lebanon II war in the summer of '06 tops the list of bad judgment calls. The imposition of a siege and collective punishment on the 1.4 million inhabitants of Gaza is unforgivable. The man Olmert personally appointed to be Justice Minister, Daniel Friedmann, is waging a dangerous and disturbing campaign against the Supreme Court, and there has been precious little positive on the socio-economic front.

In many ways, the alleged Olmert misdemeanors are a less damning chapter of his premiership--at least from a comparative perspective. In terms of what Olmert is being accused of, the material is similar to the investigations conducted against his predecessors Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, and Ariel Sharon. Netanyahu's successful campaign in 1996 was helped over the line by a sudden, huge in-flux of funding for a "Bibi's good for the Jews" campaign that clearly contravened campaign finance regulations. Bibi was also investigated for receiving various gifts and favors, most recently for a lavish trip to London during that same Lebanon conflagration in '06 (see my piece about that here). Barak and his associates were also investigated for the use of NPOs and tax-deductible donations to those NPOs for direct campaign expenses. Insufficient evidence was found--Barak got away with it. A series of investigatory clouds hovered over the Sharon premiership. Most notably the setting up of fictitious straw companies through which monies were funneled to finance election campaigns. Ariel Sharon denied knowledge and his son Omri Sharon was the fall guy, and Omri is now serving a 7-month prison sentence for fraud.

The difference with the Olmert investigation, it seems, is that one or more of Olmert's confidantes are singing--and that is a huge difference. By the way, Talansky is literally singing--in his police-questioning he started humming the tune of the old Likud revisionist song "The Two Banks of the Jordan", which aspires to a state of Israel in all of what is today Israel, the West Bank, Jordan and beyond. There are in fact suspicions that Talanksy's right-wing political affiliation is what has motivated him to bring down Olmert, although his actions more resemble those of a spurned suitor, complaining in one interview that his great beneficiary Mr. Olmert had only deigned to meet him twice since becoming Prime Minister two years ago.

Look--with all these bruises, Ehud Olmert is hardly the guy you want out there selling a peace deal to the Israeli public. For many commentators his continued pursuit of peace negotiations is no more than an attempt to distract attention away from the investigations. His credibility is shot and he looks jealously at Bush's approval ratings--so to be clear, Olmert cannot deliver on peace, not with Assad and not with Abbas.

Yet Olmert has done something unusual for which he deserves credit: he has occasionally, and unusually for an Israeli leader, shared some hard truths and realities with a public that has grown used to being told that they can have their cake and eat it too. Israelis may have known better and their previous leaders almost certainly knew better, but maintaining the illusion that Israel could continue confidently into the future while retaining the occupation seemed convenient for all concerned.

Olmert's push back yesterday was only the latest in a number of frank, myth-shattering pronouncements that he has made. Yesterday's contribution included the following: "Today we are faced with a cruel choice between the undivided Land of Israel and a Jewish state. These two cannot coexist, except in the delusions of the hallucinatory."

Responding on behalf of the hallucinatory, National Union-NRP MK Aryeh Eldad called for Prime Minister Olmert to be sentenced to death for committing the act of treason of ceding sovereign state territory. One can look forward to Mr. Eldad perhaps being part of a future Netanyahu government.

Olmert has reminded Israelis that it is ok and even necessary to talk to one's enemies with his re-launching of negotiations with Syria. Israeli and Syrian officials have conducted proximity talks, mediated by representatives of the Turkish Prime Minister last week in Istanbul. Of course in Bush-McCain land, that would make Israel's Prime Minister a Chamberlain-esque appeaser who had forgotten the lessons of the holocaust. Indeed, the Bush administration is displaying a distinct lack of enthusiasm for the Israeli-Syrian talks, and shows no sign of encouraging or facilitating their success. So it took a degree of courage for an Israeli Prime Minister to pursue the negotiations regardless, and he has also reminded the public that the price for a deal is known--namely withdrawal from the Golan (to read why Netanyahu's criticism of the Syrian negotiations and of any withdrawal from the Golan is so lacking in credibility, read this post and this text of a draft agreement between Netanyahu's envoy and President Assad from1998).

Olmert resumed final-status negotiations with the PLO after an almost 7 year hiatus and his opening negotiating positions have certainly been more reasonable than his Labor party processor Ehud Barak. Olmert has even been blunt about the necessity of a two-state solution, telling reporters after the Annapolis-November '07 conference that "if the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights, then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished."

While Olmert's handling of Gaza and the siege he has imposed is hardly praiseworthy, he has at least avoided the urgings of some of his more hawkish ministers and the Shin Bet heads to launch a re-occupation of Gaza, and he has authorized Egyptian-mediated efforts at a cease-fire with Hamas (again, rating high on the appeasement-ometer).

It is unlikely that anyone would want to claim the mantle of this Olmert legacy--that is a shame. It is even more unlikely that Olmert will speak these home truths when he addresses the AIPAC annual conference (if he still comes) next week in Washington, D.C. That is an even greater shame. Expect that speech to be a pander-fest and to forgo the opportunity of speaking truth to power, and expect this writer to feel rather embarrassed the following morning for having written these complimentary words.


16 Comments

| Leave a comment

One question is whether Olmert intends to actually commit to peace or if Syria is a distraction from his corruption. For more on talking to enemies - - Michael Walzer has an article on the subject at Dissent's Web site: "Negotiation is a form of engagement—like war, but less dangerous and much cheaper."

Every time an Israeli make sense, someone assassinates him.

I guess it's pointless to reiterate in this forum the obvious hypocrisy of the American Peaceniks like Mr. Levy:

On one hand, Preznit G.W. Bush is (justly!) vilified for his refusal to commit to an exit strategy from Iraq, even though close to 70 percent of Americans now believe that the war in Iraq was a strategic blunder and wish for a speedy troop withdrawal.

On the other hand, Mr. Olmert, allegedly the most dishonest Prime Minister in Israel's history, gets high praise for his leadership for engaging in talks with the terror-sponsoring regime of Bashar Assad, even though almost 70 percent of the Israelis are firmly opposed to returning the Golan Heights to Syria.

Why the difference? Aahh, it's the "religion of Peace Now" -- the elusive nirvana that allows to put a "kosher" stamp on crooks like Olmert and justifies countless sacrifices, first and foremost of which is the sacrifice of the truth.

That ain't the the last poll I saw. Seems the Israelis' are more prone to peace than war. Land for peace is the popular number in Israel.

user-pic

There is no hypocrisy here. Everyone knows that Olmert is a crook but if he is going to advance peace in the region every reasonable person in the world should applaud him. This is so even if his motive is to distract attention from his legal problems. In addition as long as the US is bankrolling Israel's military and fighting her ME wars, Americans should realize that our interests should come before what the majority of Israelis desire. If they wish their independence than let them declare it from the US and ask us to leave them alone.

syvanen:

The hypocrisy is in treating the "will of the people" (admittedly, based on opinion polls) differently. While we demand that the U.S. President assent to our will, we seem to applaud a foreign head of a democratic state for ignoring the will of his constituents -- in the name of peace, i.e. peace trumps democracy.

This won't work, because the Israelis are far from being a bunch of ignorant natives who know not what's good for them. In fact, since Israel has a draft and everyone, men and women, enlists for a mandatory service in IDF, including years of reserve service, the Israelis fully realize, and bear the consequences of their decisions.

Moreover, even if Olmert was pure as the driven snow, he has no mandate to pursue policies that go beyond the Israeli consensus, considering that in 2006 elections Kadima, his political party, got barely 15 percent of Israel's registered voters.

user-pic

OK IAF I agree with you. Maybe the Israeli public has a better sense of what is good for them than we do. I do know, however, that the US should act in its best interests and not in the interests that the Israeli public believes is best for Israel.

Israel is strong. There is no doubt that they can militarily overcome any threat from the surrounding Arab world, at least for today.

syvanen writes:

Israel is strong. There is no doubt that they can militarily overcome any threat from the surrounding Arab world

Don't you wish that things were this simple? How about everyone butts out and lets the Israelis and their enemies to duke it out -- until one side achieves a decisive victory, the other side capitulates and signs a document of surrender? After all, that's how military conflicts used to end...

Sadly, things are more complex today, especially in the Middle East. To remind you, in the 1973 Yom Kippur war Israel was ordered by the U.S. to stop advancing its forces when the IDF was just 60 miles away from Cairo and 25 miles from Damascus. Why? Because the Soviets threatened to interfere militarily on behalf of Egypt, and OPEC declared an oil embargo.

Of course, in stopping Israel's military and forcing a ceasefire the U.S. protected its interest -- at the expense of Israel's. That's what we always do; nothing's changed.

user-pic

iaf refers to the "obvious hypocrisy of the American Peaceniks like Mr. Levy."

Daniel Levy is not American. He is, I believe, Anglo-Israeli. But, more importantly, I think those of us who believe that war is not always the answer need a word to stand in opposition to peacenik - I suggest wart.

Can I get an amen?

Amen

The negotiations are never going to work. To find out why, google the terms "League of Nations," "Woodrow Wilson," and "Congress." In essence: don't piss off the legislature.

This will appear out of place because the "Reply" link on Hussein O'Bamarama's comments is disabled.

Hussein O'Bamarama writes:

Every time an Israeli make sense, someone assassinates him.

Ok, this must be the explanation for the 2001 assassination of Rehavam Zeevi (nicknamed "Gandhi"), Israel's Minister of Tourism by the PFLP. It's nice of you to remember him.


user-pic

"if the day comes when the two-state solution collapses . . ."

Has it ever been standing?

user-pic

Thank you. Let's hope it all goes somewhere, no matter in which institution Mr. Olmert spends the next few months and years.

Thanks for the post, Daniel.
Olmert has indeed come some distance in his thinking.
Too little, perhaps, and certainly very late.
Of his possible successors, Tzipi Livni still shows some room for growth, I believe, but Bibi and Barak are hopeless dinosaurs.
I blame proportional representation, and the premium it places on pandering to single-issue political groupings. That in turn has limited the aspirations and imaginations of Israeli leaders.
I fear things will smoulder, simmer and periodically erupt for four more years until -- perhaps -- President Obama finally gets around to making Mideast peace a U.S. priority in his second term.
I'm a loyal Prospects for Peace reader, but I'm glad to see you cross-posting to an even wider audience here.
You help keep the spark of hope flickering.

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Book Club Calendar

Coming Soon



January 12-16



« Book Club ArchiveFull calendar »

Recent Reader Posts

All Reader Posts »





Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address