Olmert's clean volte face

What does Ehud Olmert and Bill Clinton have in common? Not much, one might guess and this is generally true. But when one examines their careers closely, one would be surprised that the two lame-duck leaders attempted in the few weeks before they left office to resolve once and for all the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

In the summer of 2000, Clinton summoned then Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak and the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to Camp David in the hope of settling the problem that, for more than 60 years, has inflamed the Middle East, described by Henry Kissinger recently as "the most dangerous region in the world".

The terms of the Clinton peace proposals, according to former president Jimmy Carter, were untenable for the Palestinians.

"There was no possibility that any Palestinian leader could accept such terms and survive," Carter wrote in his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. "But official statements from Washington and Occupied Jerusalem were successful on placing the entire onus for the failure on Yasir (sic) Arafat."

Olmert, the disgraced Israeli leader who is being driven out of office on charges of corruption, has apparently decided to follow Clinton's footsteps in an attempt to add lustre to his sordid legacy.

A week after he resigned his post, Olmert took an unexpected position in Israeli foreign policy that has shocked his countrymen and surprised others elsewhere.

His volte face came in an exclusive interview on September 29 with the Israeli daily, Yediot Aharonot, when he unexpectedly declared that Israel must withdraw from virtually all of the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, Syria's Golan Heights and that any Palestinian land withheld will be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.

“What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leaders before me,'' he told the paper. “The time has come to say these things.''

Acknowledging his unrealistic views of yesteryears, Olmert courageously admitted : “I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth.''

Bombshell

But Olmert's bombshell has fallen on deaf Israeli ears and many others are wondering why he has not taken steps to this effect during his term after he took over from his ailing predecessor, Ariel Sharon, in January 2006.

If anything, the Olmert government has disregarded Palestinian outcries against continued expansion of Israeli colonies as well as reducing the Israeli-controlled roadblocks.

The reaction of Tzipi Livni, the Israeli prime minister-designate, to Olmert's bold ideas have been disappointing: "I do not believe in far-reaching proposals and an attempt to expedite matters, especially in light of the political situation."

Meantime, the Palestinians at present are encountering serious domestic problems emanating from the split between Fatah and Hamas, which is now in full control of the Gaza Strip.

More seriously, the term of President Mahmoud Abbas as head of the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority expires in January, a development that Hamas has apparently been awaiting since it announced this week that it will not longer recognise his authority thereafter.

According to Peretz Kidron, a writer and broadcaster living in Occupied Jerusalem, "the only Palestinian state (Livni) is willing to countenance would have to yield considerable territory to Israel, and consent to severe restrictions on its sovereign rights."

Should she emerge as prime minister, he finds "little hope" that she "will muster the courage needed for a breakthrough on peace".

Whatever the next few days bring, Olmert's courageous statements have at least underlined the bankruptcy of the Israeli establishment.

The first sign of this has been the reported resurgence of "violence and lawlessness" among Israeli colonists against their Palestinian neighbours or outspoken Israeli peace activists, one of whom was injured in a bomb attack.

Posters were found offering a million shekels (about $300,000) to anyone killing a member of the Israeli Peace Now movement which opposes Jewish colonies.

The bottom line remains that the only option for the near future is a two-state solution, whereby the two sides could in time have the option of forming a federation that would allow the two peoples to share historic Palestine.

George Hishmeh is a Washington-based columnist.