Posts Tagged ‘Ehud Olmert’

« Older Entries

Condoleezzaa Rice’s new book revisits Olmert-Abbas near-breakthrough in 2008

Wednesday, November 2nd, 2011

A new book by U.S. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice revisits the “Annapolis process” of direct Israeli-Palestinian talks that she personally shepherded. She places the date of near-breakthrough proposals from Israel’s then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as May 2008 — four months earlier than most accounts have previously reported.

The AP had an interview with Rice to coincide with the publication of her memoir, No Higher Honor, today: “Rice’s account confirms then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s claim that he had laid out a comprehensive proposal for peace during secret meetings with Rice and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas … In the book, Rice recounts a private dinner with Olmert in May 2008 when she said he presented the plan. It contained ways to address the most difficult issues preventing Israel and the Palestinians from agreeing on terms for a separate Palestinian state, she wrote. Olmert proposed a system for shared jurisdiction of Jerusalem and return of a limited number of Palestinians who left their homes in what is now Israel when the Jewish state was created in 1948, Rice wrote. Olmert also would end the Israeli occupation of the West Bank and hand over about 94 percent of the territory to the Palestinians for the bulk of their state, she wrote. ‘Concentrate, concentrate’, Rice describes herself as thinking as Olmert spoke. ‘This is unbelievable’.”

The AP story is headlined: “Mideast peace prospects [have] worsened under Obama”.

This AP interview as Condoleezza Rice’s book is published here.

Rice claims, as many media accounts do, that the Obama Administration raised the bar too high by its early adoption of a demand for a settlement freeze after which direct negotiations would resume. This, she [like most media accounts] says, was the main problem that blocked the possibility of resuming direct Israeli-Palestinian talks — which, she implies [backing the Palestinian position on this point] should have resumed at the point they were broken off.

Now, she said, the lack of talks is the the main factor in the dangerous increase in tension in the region.

The Washington Post also published this AP story, which quoted Rice as saying: “I do think focusing on settlements in that particular way was a mistake … The parties then were able to have a reason not to sit down … and they’re running out of time … When they’re not talking, they’re sliding backward”.

This is posted here.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestine, U.S.A. | No Comments »

Giora Eiland: Obama ended ambiguity about a two-state solution

Sunday, April 4th, 2010

In an article published by YNet, an Israeli former National Security adviser, Giora Eiland, wrote that “When one of the sides, and especially if it’s a superpower, decides to call a spade a spade, a new reality emerges … In December 2000, President Bill Clinton presented his plan for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  It was not a list of abstract principle, but rather, concrete geographical, technical, and numerical proposals for resolving each of the core issues – borders, security arrangements, Jerusalem, refugees, and so on.   Ever since then, the notion of the two-state solution in the eyes of any US Administration, and certainly a Democratic one, has been a codename for Clinton’s plan. Its essence is as follows: Two states between the Jordan River and Mediterranean Sea, with the border between them premised on the 1967 boundaries (with minor changes,) a divided Jerusalem, limits on the Palestinian state’s militarization, and no return of Palestinian refugees to Israel.  To the Americans, as well as to the parties to the conflict, it’s clear that a final-status agreement on the basis of two states is the Clinton plan with minor adjustments, regardless of who the negotiators are.  For nine years – George W. Bush’s eight years in office and Obama’s one year – the Americans and Israelis preferred to make do with agreement on the ambiguous principle of two states. Both Prime Minister Sharon and PM Netanyahu were able to live with this abstract concept. It was convenient for both the US and Israel to explain that the nature of the final-status agreement is unknown, and it will be subject to negotiations between the two sides.  Yet recently, Obama decided to no longer make do with the codename and ensure that Netanyahu also understands and agrees that endorsing the ‘two-status solution’ means endorsing Clinton’s plan. This caused great embarrassment. PM Netanyahu assumed that real answers, if at all, will be needed only during the negotiations, yet he was asked to provide them here and now … Netanyahu thinks that the Clinton plan is bad for Israel; he also knows that he cannot implement it even if he wished to do so.  [Yet] … Instead, Netanyahu officially endorsed the Clinton plan (which, as noted, is the only American interpretation of the ‘two-state solution’.) Yet when Obama asked him to say explicitly what he seemingly said in his Bar-Ilan speech, Netanyahu found it difficult to speak.  The American conclusions of this are grim: Firstly, Israel has no alternate ideas.  Secondly, the Clinton plan is the only solution and there is nothing else.  Thirdly, Israel’s prime minister is an unreliable person.  The distance from these conclusions to a situation whereby the US dictates a plan, including a binding timetable, is short. Ironically, we can assume that the main possibility to get out of this problematic situation stems from the fact that the Palestinians also cannot accept the Clinton plan (recognition of a Jewish state, a declaration that they have no more demands, and renunciation of the right of return.) In fact, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas was not willing to even discuss the Clinton model with PM Olmert”.   This opinion piece by Giora Eiland can be read in full on YNet here

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Israel, Palestine | No Comments »

Olmert asks: What happened?

Monday, February 15th, 2010

Speaking at a conference at Tel Aviv University today, Israel’s former prime minister Ehud Olmert said that “during his tenure he offered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas an unprecedented peace offer, based on a return to the 1967 borders and a fair demographic land arrangement which would see heavily Jewish areas in the West Bank remain under Israeli control. ‘I offered a land swap, I offered a solution for Jerusalem, where the Jewish part would remain under Israeli authority and the Arab sections would be given to the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state’ … According to Olmert’s plan, the Holy Basin would be demarcated under the rule of five different states with access available to believers of all religions. The offer was based on the agreements reached at a 2007 summit in Annapolis Maryland, Olmert said, and would be carried out in accordance with the Road Map for peace. Olmert said he and Abbas had reached an interim agreement on the Palestinian right of return, but he never received a final response from the Palestinians on the matter. ‘I found Abbas to be a fair partner, opposed to terror’, said Olmert. ‘What happened? That is the question of all questions, which I would answer if I could. I hope that the State of Israel will put at the top of its agenda the fact that there was a peace proposal offered by a legitimate government… It’s time the international community demand an answer from the Palestinians instead of arguing about a building here and a building there’ … Olmert added that he had ‘reached the conclusion that in choosing between the greater Israel and a Jewish, democratic state, I prefer the latter’, saying he knew it would be necessary to withdraw from much of the land the Palestinians want for a state. Olmert also said he had been ‘hours’ from meeting with the Syrian foreign minister during his tenure, but that the talks were canceled after Israel embarked on its offensive in the Gaza Strip”. here.

Why do people wait so long to say these things?

What would have happened if he had said it loudly, publicly, insistently, repetitiously, at the time?

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestine, Syria | No Comments »

Geneva Intiative input into Annapolis negotiations

Monday, January 25th, 2010

Haaretz reporters Aluf Benn and Barak Ravid have published an account of a meeting of the Israeli team that supports the Geneva Initiative between Israeli and Palestinian civil society (in December 2003) that gives a glimpse into what happened in the direct Israeli-Palestinian negotiations under the Annapolis process in 2008. This account also explains why Israel’s then-Prime Ehud Olmert was looking for information from the experts who had worked on drafting the Geneva Intiative.

Here is an extended excerpt from the Haaretz article:

    “I do not believe that in the foreseeable future there is a possibility of an agreement with the Palestinians on all the issues, especially on the problematic core issues,” says Udi Dekel, who headed the negotiations task force in the previous government. Dekel spoke on Thursday at a conference on the unofficial “Geneva Initiative” peace plan … He was highly critical of the negotiating tactics of former prime minister Ehud Olmert and his Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni in their dealings with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and the head of his negotiating team, Ahmed Qureia. “The biggest mistake was that everything was based on the premise that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed,” Dekel said. “We thought at the time that this could provide the necessary flexibility in the negotiations, but in practice, every time someone showed flexibility, the other side tried to pin him down. Therefore, I suggest that the model be changed and that whatever is agreed is implemented.”

    (more…)

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestine | No Comments »

Olmert revelation – I made a “final offer” to Abbas in September 2008

Thursday, March 26th, 2009

YNet’s Roni Sofer wrote that outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert made an “unprecedented” offer to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008 — to which Abbas has not responded, Olmert claims — proposing to give Palestinians 93% of the West Bank and parts of Herusalem.

In the story, Sofer reported that “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert attempted to clarify Thursday alleged promises he had made in a so-called ‘final offer’ to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in September 2008, which included the eviction of tens of thousands of settlers and territorial concessions in Jerusalem. ‘There was one point when I put things on the table and offered Abbas something that had never been offered and dealt with the crux of the problem, with the most sensitive issues that touch the most exposed nerves and historical obstacles’, Olmert said during a Thursday conference in Herzliya. ‘I told him – “let’s sign”. It was half a year ago and I’m still waiting’, he said. Senior officials said that a meeting of the leaders in the Prime Minister’s resident in Jerusalem involved a ‘final offer to end the conflict’. The offer involved a future border between a possible Palestinian state to Israel, involving the eviction of the more than 60,000 settlers living beyond the security barrier in the West Bank – the proposed new border between the two entities. The offer involved a return of 93% of the West Bank, leaving in Israel the large population centers, such as Ariel and Elkanah in the north, Maaleh Adumim in the center, and Jerusalem and Gush Etzion in the south. Regarding Jerusalem itself, Olmert offered to cede over to the Palestinians the peripheral neighborhoods and the refugee camps surrounding the city, such as Kalandia. The holy sites, whose sovereignty is desired by all faiths, would be determined within an international framework, the prime minister said. The plan was also presented to the Americans who, according to the Prime Minister’s Office, supported the plan. They apparently also expressed optimism that the offer would be acceptable to the Palestinians”…

This account was published in full in YNet here.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestine | 1 Comment »

Tzipi wins Kadima party primary, pushes Olmert to resign

Sunday, September 21st, 2008

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he would resign after the Kadima party primary, Tzipi Livni said after her win in that primary last week (18 September), so let him resign. And, Livni indicated, Olmert should not wait until 2 October, after the Jewish New Year, as Olmert aides indicated — he should resign ASAP, Livni said.

Olmert’s resignation is expected at or after the weekly Sunday Cabinet meeting today.

The primary exit polls had predicted a much wider margin for Tzipi’s victory (nearly ten points), but she turned out to win by only 1.1% over runner-up Shaul Mofaz. Both Tzipi and Mofaz got more than 40% of the primary vote, so a second round of balloting was not needed.

Mofaz then declined to challenge the results, despite his supporters claims of irregularities — and said he intended to withdraw from politics for a time.

The Associated Press reported that Tzipi said after her win that: ” ‘The national responsibility (bestowed) by the public brings me to approach this job with great reverence’ … Livni will have 42 days to form a new ruling coalition. If she succeeds, she will become Israel’s first female prime minister since Golda Meir. If she fails, the country will hold elections in early 2009, a year and a half ahead of schedule. Olmert will remain as a caretaker leader until a new coalition is approved by parliament. Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said the prime minister called Livni to congratulate her on her victory and would notify the Cabinet on Sunday that he would resign. ‘After that, he will resign’, Regev said … The primary was Kadima’s first since the party was founded by then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in 2005. Sharon suffered a debilitating stroke in early 2006, and Olmert subsequently led the party to victory in elections”. here .

The McClatchy newspaper group’s Dion Nissenbaum wrote that “Livni will have to use her diplomatic acumen to persuade skeptical political adversaries to join her in forming a new coalition government that can lead the nation. If she fails to form a coalition by early November, she’d be forced to lead the Kadima Party in national elections. And polls find her facing a difficult task in topping Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader and former prime minister, who’s taken a harder line on peace talks with Israel’s adversaries. By choosing Livni over Mofaz, Kadima voters implicitly endorsed the foreign minister’s diplomacy-before-warfare approach to tackling Israel’s biggest concerns: making peace with the Palestinians and neutering Iran’s nuclear program. Should Livni succeed in becoming the next prime minister, she’s expected to press ahead with two of Olmert’s biggest diplomatic gambits: U.S.-backed peace talks with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and nascent, indirect negotiations with Syria that are being overseen by Turkey. Both tracks face significant hurdles, and there’s a growing sense among politicians and academics in the region that there’ll be no diplomatic breakthroughs until U.S. voters choose a new president”. Dion’s analysis can be read in full here.

An article in Haaretz by Amir Oren stated that “Livni’s first priorty will be to de-Omertize the Kadima party: If she were leading a rock group, we could call it Tzipi and the Expectations [a play on words in Hebrew -- see Uri Avnery below]. She is expected to form a nimble yet stable government, broad enough to avert early Knesset elections yet efficient enough to work and to make policy. Her first priority will be to briskly de-Olmertize the party and to purge the rot and corruption at the top of the government. In practice, this should mean the swift exit of Olmert’s crony culture in the Prime Minister’s Office and in the cabinet, starting with Haim Ramon and Daniel Friedmann”. This analysis/comment can be read in Haaretz here.

YNet reported that: “Shas Chairman Eli Yishai, a key potential coalition partner … said he was ‘sure that Livni knows that the public doesn’t care about her victory today, but rather, about her actions tomorrow. The elections are a means, not an end’. Shas’ chairman added that ‘If Livni addresses the issue of a million hungry children and doesn’t give away the country’s assets – with an emphasis on Jerusalem – we’ll be in her government. If not, we won’t be’ … However, Yishai added that certain Kadima members preferred to go to general election. ‘I feel that within Kadima there are those who desire elections. A government cannot be established now. We will be part of the government only if our demands are fulfilled. I don’t believe in the option of a government with 61 MKs. Either there will be a stable government with Shas, or elections’, he said”…

There was some shock when it was announced that Livni had approached Meretz to join the Government. Israeli analyists said that if Meretz would agree, then the government would have to be “balanced” by at least one of the religious parties to make it less “left-wing”. It’s too bad that the Arab parties who are represented in the Knesset have traditionally refused to serve in the government — it would be very interesting to see the country’s lead negotiator in the Annapolis-process peace talks with the Palestinian Authority leading a government in which pro-peace forces dominate, and in which Israel’s “Arab” [i.e. Palestinian] elected parliamentarians would responsibly participate … and help make a negotiated peace possible.

Tags: ,
Posted in Uncategorized | No Comments »

Is there a deal?

Tuesday, September 16th, 2008

Speculation is rising about the possibility of a deal on the eve of an election to replace Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as leader of his political party, Kadima — which may or may not result on his leaving office (depending on whether his successor can form a new government).

This is admittedly confusing, as Olmert has pledged to resign immediately after the party primary on Wednesday.

Here is the fire and the smoke from the Israeli press today:

(I.)
Haaretz says that “Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is seriously considering Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s proposal of an agreement in principle on the core issues in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, Spanish Foreign Minister Miguel Moratinos told Haaretz Monday after he met with the two leaders. ‘My conclusion from the talks with Olmert and Abu-Mazen [Abbas] is that the discussion and the proposals are extremely positive. I think that they are very close. I am convinced that these peace talks are going to be irreversible from what they have achieved. Whatever happens in Israeli internal politics and in the U.S. administration – both sides and the international community need to work to make them irreversible’, Moratinos said. Moratinos said that in his meeting with Olmert, he received details of the main points of the Israeli prime minister’s proposal to Abbas, and that the proposal was “based on a long series of bilateral negotiations” between Olmert and Abbas … This afternoon, Abbas is to hold another meeting with Olmert at the prime minister’s official residence in Jerusalem, and according to the Spanish foreign minister, the Palestinian may then give Olmert his answer. Moratinos said Abbas was ‘impressed by the proposal and he is studying it. They are quite impressed by the proposal and they see it as a serious proposal. In general they consider it positively – but they still need to make the decision’. In a meeting of his own with Moratinos on Sunday night, Olmert told the Spanish foreign minister that he was concerned over pressure being applied by senior Palestinian officials on the PA president to say no to Olmert’s proposal for an agreement in principle on the core issues. Olmert told Moratinos that some Palestinian officials had fallen in love with the negotiations and are trying to thwart an agreement. Olmert was apparently referring to Ahmed Qureia, who is in charge of the talks with Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and is urging Abbas to continue the talks into 2009.
Moratinos is encouraging Abbas to accept Olmert’s proposal. He has also discussed the matter with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, and will be in Damascus tomorrow for talks with President Bashar Assad”. The full Haaretz article can be found here.

(II.)
Another article in Haaretz reports that “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Monday said he was sorry for the plight of Palestinians and Jews who became refugees as a result of Israel’s establishment. ‘I join in expressing sorrow for what happened to the Palestinians and also for what happened to the Jews who were expelled from Arab states’, the prime minister said. Olmert made the comments before a meeting of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, apparently in his last such session as prime minister. He was speaking in reference to the key Palestinian demand for a ‘right of return’ in peace negotiations with Israel … ‘Under absolutely no circumstances will there be a right of return’, Olmert declared, ‘but we are prepared to be part of an international mechanism that will work to solve the problem’. Palestinians have demanded that Israel accept responsibility for the suffering of Palestinians who fled or were driven from their homes in the War of Independence that followed Israel’s 1948 creation. Olmert’s remark Monday fell far short of meeting this demand. But it was unusual for an Israeli prime minister to say Israel will participate in expressing sorrow for what happened to them. The premier also said that a peace deal with the Palestinian Authority will involve proportionate land swaps between the two sides. ‘The territorial price of peace with the Palestinians will bring us very close to the land-for-land formula. This needs to be said forthrightly and with courage. There are different ways of reaching this formula through annexing or exchanging territories’, Olmert said.” This article can be read in full here.

(III.)
And, yet another Haaretz article states that “According to Olmert, by the end of 2008, it should be possible to attain understandings with the Palestinians on three issues: borders, security and refugees. However Olmert stressed that the implementation of the understandings is conditioned on the application of the Bush road map and eradication of the Palestinian terrorist infrastructures, and so implementation will take place at a much later stage. ‘It is important to reach understandings, even if their implementation is delayed’, he said … Olmert also said: ‘We will be sorry for every day that goes by without an agreeement with the Palestinians, and the person saying this is one who once held different opinions and even fought for them.” Olmert said the price of not reaching an agreement quickly would be ‘intolerable’. Olmert said that even exchanging equal territory with the Palestinians would be ”less than what we will have to pay in the future’. According to Olmert’s proposal, the Palestinians would receive 93 percent of the West Bank and the equivalent of another approximately 5.5 percent of territory, in the Negev adjacent to the Gaza Strip, in exchange for the large settlement blocs, which would be annexed to Israel. Olmert has also proposed an international compensation mechanism for Palestinian refugees and the symbolic return of a few thousand such refugees without Israel recognizing the right of return or responsibility for the creation of the Palestinian refugee problem. Olmert reportedly wants to postpone discussion of Jerusalem, and to hold talks on that subject in a broad international framework. The prime minister told the committee that there is a concern over ‘the entrenchment of the narrative of a binational state, in which we will not be the majority. Ever-growing segments of the international community are adopting the idea of a binational state. I see a Jewish state as a condition for our existence’. Olmert said an agreement would lead to international recognition of Israel’s borders in the context of a two-state solution … In response to a question about his position on exchanges of territory and populations, he said: ‘I am not in favor of taking a million Arabs out of Israel’. Olmert said that an agreement with the Palestinians would make it much easier to solve problems involving Israel’s Arab citizens”… This story can be read in full in Haaretz here.

(IV.)
The Jerusalem Post is reporting that “Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is scheduled to meet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Tuesday. The two leaders are expected to formulate a document that will include the agreements reached during negotiations so far, ahead of Abbas’s upcoming visit to Washington. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qurei, who head the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams, will not attend the meeting.” This brief JPost report is posted here.

(V.)
nd the JPost is also reporting that: “Ehud Olmert has discussed with the Palestinians transferring to them 98.1 percent of the West Bank, Channel 2 [television] reported on Sunday evening. The report on the ongoing negotiations was broadcast in advance of Tuesday’s planned meeting between Olmert and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. The Prime Minister’s Office declined to comment on the news item and said only that many such media reports had been published in the last months regarding the talks. Earlier in the day, during what could be his last cabinet meeting before he becomes the head of a transitional government, Olmert addressed Israel’s relationship to the West Bank when he spoke of a voluntary evacuation bill to help relocate settlers living east of the security barrier. ‘The vision of a greater Israel no longer exists. Those who speak of it are delusional’, the prime minister said. No vote was taken on the measure. According to Channel 2, however, Olmert is considering concessions far beyond land east of the barrier and could transfer 98.1% of the West Bank to the PA. That is significantly more than the 94% to 96% that had been discussed in previous negotiations …

The report states that Abbas has asked that Israel cede the Jerusalem area settlements of Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev, but is willing to negotiate the status of the Jerusalem neighborhoods of Gilo and French Hill, which are over the Green Line. In the past the Palestinians have demanded that Israel fully withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, including from eastern Jerusalem. Israel has insisted it plans to keep the larger settlements blocs including Ma’aleh Adumim and Givat Ze’ev as well as the Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. The future of Jerusalem, according to Channel 2, was being negotiated between Olmert and Abbas, and not by the team led by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. [n.b. - remember the -U.S. State Department information note, after the flap over the interview by U.S. Consul in Jerusalem Jacob Walles, which stated cryptically that Livni has not been negotiating on Jerusalem ... see our earlier post here].

The article continues: “Olmert has also agreed that 5,000 Palestinian refugees would return to Israel – a thousand refugees every year for five years, according to the report. Abbas allegedly rejected the proposal and was demanding the return of many more refugees. According to the report, the Palestinians were also interested in access not only to the Dead Sea but also to the Kinneret, as they claimed they deserved some rights over the water flowing into the lake because the Jordan River runs through Palestinian territory … Speaking in defense of the voluntary evacuation bill at the cabinet meeting, Olmert said that for the 40 years since it acquired the West Bank during the Six Day War, Israel had been making excuses as to why it could not do anything. This, he said, did not help Israel. It was important Israel showed it had taken initiative in the peace process. ‘We have to advance the voluntary evacuation compensation bill and to bring it to the cabinet [for a vote]‘, the prime minister said. Olmert said he had not always supported territorial concessions and that he had initially felt that then-prime minister Ehud Barak had offered the Palestinians too much at Camp David in 2000. ‘I thought that the land between the Jordan River and the sea was ours’, he said. In the end, he said he came to the conclusion that we had to reach an agreement with the Palestinians if we did not want to see Israel become a binational state. There was no time to waste, Olmert said. adding: ‘We can argue about every small detail and find that when we are ready for an agreement there is no partner and no international support’. In the not too distant future, there would come a day when ‘we will want those same solutions that we are rejecting today’, he said”. This JPost article can be read in full here.

Also from JPost article, we learn that “Vice Premier Haim Ramon in briefing reporters on Sunday, expressed skepticism as to the success of the negotiations. Ramon said he was not optimistic that a final-status agreement would be reached, ‘not at the end of this year and not at the end of next year’.
But what was clear, he said, was that in the future, ‘settlements east of the barrier won’t be under Israeli sovereignty’. There was no reason why those settlers who understood that the barrier represented a future border should have to wait five or 10 years to be evacuated, Ramon said. At Sunday’s cabinet meeting, he proposed a voluntary evacuation bill that would offer property owners in the 72 settlements outside of the barrier an average of $300,000 or NIS 1.1 million for their homes. Those homes would then be sealed or destroyed so they could not be reused by other settlers, Ramon said … According to Ramon, there are an estimated 61,808 settlers living outside of the barrier, out of whom 11,000, or 18%, would accept such an offer. Such a measure, Ramon said, would help those settlers who did not enjoy the same security offered Israelis living inside the barrier and would also be seen by the Palestinians as a sign of good faith toward the negotiations. Ramon’s proposal was immediately objected to by the four candidates competing in Wednesday’s primary for the Kadima leadership. If the government wanted to make a gesture toward the Palestinians that involved territory, it should evacuate the unauthorized outposts, said Interior Minister Meir Sheetrit. That was particularly true, he said, given that it had already promised the international community that it would do so. Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni warned that the Palestinians would view the measure as a unilateral step. She added that Israel should not take steps to determine a border while it was in the midst of negotiating one with the Palestinians. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said that such a law would embolden the Palestinians to increase their demands. Public Security Minister Avi Dichter said the proposal would be impossible to implement. More to the point, it would make any future evacuations harder to carry out because the net effect of the bill would be to replace less ideological settlers with more determined ones. In defense of his proposal, Ramon told reporters that the borders under negotiations with the Palestinians were already well known. Livni, he said, could only wish that the barrier would in fact be the final border” … This article is posted here.

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Israel, Lebanon, Middle East peace process, Palestine, Syria, Uncategorized | No Comments »

Akiva Eldar on Olmert and the current Situation

Monday, June 2nd, 2008

Akiva Ekdar has just written this reflection in Haaretz on the pickle that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is presently in and the options:
“Kadima [Olmert's party, founded by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon] has not managed to create its own political culture. In effect, to this day, it has not succeeded in leaving a mark on any sphere in which a ruling party is involved. Olmert’s most important contribution, and what distinguishes him from Netanyahu (and also from Ehud Barak), is the replacement of the unilateral solution with the principle of consent. Sharon translated Barak’s “no-partner” doctrine into a strategy of crushing the Palestinian Authority, eliminating the political option and the unilateral approach. Olmert brought the term “permanent arrangement” back into public discourse, and transformed Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) into a regular sight on Israelis’ televisions. Too bad the peace with Syria appeared again on the agenda in the shadow of Talansky’s harsh testimony. Thanks to these processes, Olmert deserves a place in the history books, not only as the person responsible for the debacle in Lebanon and as a cigar-loving political hack.

“It seems that Olmert will have to drop the plan to go to elections with a ‘shelf’ agreement that would present the principles of a permanent arrangement, and with a draft of a peace agreement between Israel and Syria. Even the Palestinians have learned that when the Israelis start talking about elections, they are not willing to hear about the division of Jerusalem and the refugee problem. But if he really does believe that in the absence of a two-state solution, ‘the Jewish state is finished’, Olmert must see to it that the next government, whatever its composition, finds Palestinian partners for that very solution.

“The fate of these partners is now in Olmert’s hands. If he continues toying with the Egyptian outline for a cease-fire (tahadiyeh) in Gaza, one more missile striking an apartment building in Ashkelon will be enough for the government to drag the Israel Defense Forces into a blood-soaked campaign deep inside the Gaza Strip. On the other hand, a siege of 1.5 million citizens cannot last forever, and eventually will explode. In both cases, the Fatah leadership led by Abu Mazen, which is perceived as a collaborator with Israel, will emerge by the skin of its teeth. This is why Hamas’ sworn enemies are supporting, if not almost begging, for Olmert to sign the tahadiyeh agreement, and to open the border crossings between the Gaza Strip and Israel. The Egyptians are hinting that they are saving the opening of the Rafah crossing for the next stage of the deal, which will include the return of abducted soldier Gilad Shalit.

“In addition to keeping the situation in the Gaza Strip quiet, Olmert has an additional series of means at his disposal that can enhance the status of the Palestinian partners, until the political situation in Israel is clarified. All he has to do is pull out of the drawer the list of promises he made to Abu Mazen (and to the Americans) and instruct the defense establishment to uphold them in spirit and in practice. The prime minister, after all, claims that he is continuing to carry out his duties in the best possible way even during the very difficult times he is experiencing”.

The full Akiva Eldar article can be read here .

Tags: , ,
Posted in Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestine, Syria | No Comments »

Tzipi takes a stand

Friday, May 30th, 2008

“Tzipi”! called out Israel’s Internal (or Public) Security Minister Avi Dichter, greeting Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni on Thursday afternoon as she breezed into a conference room, surrounded by an unusually relaxed security escort, at Jerusalem’s Inbal Hotel – a favorite meeting place of Israel’s conservative elite – where she was scheduled to address an illustrious audience on the Challenges to Homeland Security.

Livni was glowing – confident, radiant, fit, tanned.

At the podium, she joked that when pictures of her and fellow Kadima Party politician Dichter hit the newspapers on Friday, “I can guarantee you that the papers won’t be mentioning homeland security or terror”.

In fact, the headlines were about her open break with Olmert, a bombshell she revealed to a crush of journalists in a corridor outside, just minutes before entering the conference room.

The journalists all immediately rushed off to file reports, without going into a Conference they were sure would be boring. And they missed hearing Livni tell the Homeland Security ministers of many of the main countries in the Western world that Hamas has to be deposed in the Gaza Strip before a Palestinian State is created.

Dichter, who was hosting the “First International Security Forum of Ministers of Interior and Homeland Security” at the Inbal Hotel, indicated elsewhere on Thursday that he would be among those who would run for the party leadership — if and when party primaries are held — to replace scandal-tainted Prime Minster Ehud Olmert.

Olmert himself claims that he will eventually be able to prove that he is innocent. He repeated on Thursday that he did not intend to resign, and added that he felt he is being done an injustice: “Some people think that every investigation requires a resignation. I do not agree”, he said.

Veteran Israeli journalists caution against placing too much credibility in the many leaks now coming from partisan sources close to the police investigation or to the Attorney General’s office. Olmert has survived previous reports of scandal.

But there has never previously been any reaction as significant as the gauntlet thrown down on Wednesday by Labor Party Leader Ehud Barak – Israel’s powerful Defense Minister and himself a former Prime Minister – who called on Olmert to step down “soon”.

Barak said Olmert could handle the matter in a number of ways – including by claiming disability. Olmert revealed last year that he had been diagnosed with prostate cancer, and that he would eventually have to face surgery. But, that surgery was postponed so that Olmert could attend the Annapolis Conference last November, then so that he could host George Bush’s first visit to Israel as U.S. President in mid-January…and Olmert is scheduled to visit Washington again next week. However, Olmert may well soon decide that it is time to step aside (but not necessarily resign) to address his medical concerns.

In that case, Livni would take over as acting Prime Minister.

Livni, just before addressing the conference at the Inbal Hotel on Thursday, willingly entered a narrow – even claustrophobic — space under a stairwell to stand in a prepared spot in front of a poster for the Homeland Security meeting, where a throng of cameramen and photographers had been waiting, to make her first clear comments on the developing crisis.

Apparently referring to Ehud Barak’s statements, Livni told the journalists that “the reality has changed since yesterday … I suspect that Kadima needs to start right away acting for every eventuality, including elections.”

Livni said: “It is impossible to do nothing while Ehud Barak threatens to force early elections…”
YNet later reported that Livni said in an interview that “Kadima must set a date for primary elections as soon as possible. We must determine who will be the party’s candidate for the premiership in order to ease tensions. This has to be done. Things changed following the testimony of (American financier Morris) Talansky”.

Livni’s deliberate and pre-meditated remarks were, as the Israeli media is now reporting, an indication of the extent of the now-open rebellion in Olmert’s own Kadima party. Livni told the journalists that “In this way, we can operate to restore the trust in Kadima”.

Accusations immediately surfaced in the Israeli media of treacherous coordination (particularly coming from Livni’s Kadima rival Shaul Mofaz, Transportation Minister) between Livni and the Labor Party leader Ehud Barak, whose statements on Wednesday set in motion a new dynamic that will almost inevitably lead to early parliamentary elections (earlier, that is, than the next scheduled elections in 2010 – and perhaps even by the end of this year, as Barak has suggested).

But, Barak has denied any coordination, and Livni told the crush of journalists at the Inbal Hotel on Thursday that “The issue isn’t only legal, and the test on what is criminal and what isn’t is not only the personal business of the prime minister. It is related to the values and norms and their influence on the trust of the public. It infuriates me … and I am coming out against the attempt to impose improper norms on politics.”

Minutes later, in the Homeland Security Conference, Livni told the assembled ministers – including U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff – that new trends toward open borders and a world village was fine “when it comes to Coca Cola, but when it comes to Al-Qaeda, it is a threat to the whole world”.

She said that “national conflicts are being changed to religious conflicts … but religious conflicts are unsolvable”.

“There is no just cause for terrorism, but some groups’ agendas are ideological-religious, and they are not fighting to get rights but to deprive others of rights”.

“We are ready to fight for others to put their agendas on the table for discussion”, Livni said, referring here apparently mainly to the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations – “this is part of democratic values, and I believe deeply in democratic values, but not to spread their own religious agendas”.

She added that “We are working with those who represent the national interests of the Palestinian people, but we need to de-legitimize a Hamas that cannot accept the right of Israel to exist … or accept prior agreements”.

Livni called, at the Homeland Security Conference, for a new “universal code for democratic elections”.

Groups dedicated to armed struggle should have to make a choice before standing for elections about whether or not they will continue on this path — not after elections — “Let them do it before”.

“Before the [2006 Palestinian] elections, I tried to prevent the participation of Hamas”, Livni told the Conference. “According to the Israeli political system, and to our Supreme Court, this should not have happened. It’s the same in Europe (including Spain and Turkey), and it’s part of the new constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan. The only place in the world that it’s not is in the Palestinian areas”.

In response to the concerns she expressed about Hamas’ participation in the elections, Livni said, she got two answers:”(1) ‘Don’t worry, Hamas will only get 20% of the vote’, and (2) ‘But look at Hizballah in Lebanon – the fact that they have become a part of the political system has made them more moderate’”.

Now, she said, “We can avert a process by which a Palestinian state becomes a failed state or an Islamic state. Part of the solution is to address the situation in Gaza and change the situation on the ground before the creation of a Palestinian state”, Livni said.

In an extremely unusual gesture, Israel’s Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter had invited his Palestinian counterpart, General Abdel-Razak al-Yahya, to attend (but as an observer) the Homeland Security Conference. In an even more unusual gesture, the Inbal Hotel had very prominently displayed the Palestinian flag on the wall of the building, to the immediate right of the Israeli flags hanging over the entrance door, and in parallel with the American flag displayed to the left of the entrance door. The flags of the other ministers participating – Germany, Canada, France, Spain, Poland, Italy – were ranged on either side.

Palestinian taxi drivers in Jerusalem said they were absolutely amazed – they had never seen such a prominent display of a Palestinian flag in West Jerusalem – and not last, but in the first ranking. “Who was there?”, they asked “Was it Mahmoud Abbas?”

No, it was not Abu Mazen, it was supposed to be the Interior Minister, General Abdel-Razak al-Yehya – the man who is working with U.S. Lt. General Dayton and his Israeli counterparts to build a new, reformed, Palestinian police and security force. But even he was not there – and the Homeland Security Conference organizers said they had no idea why the Palestinian Minister had not come.

No one could be reached immediately in Ramallah to explain the Palestinian Minister’s absence, either.

U.S. Homeland Security chief Chertoff told this reporter that he thought the Conference was “very good” – but when asked if he had been expecting to meet with the Palestinian Interior Minister, Chertoff said “I don’t want to get into this with the press”, and hurried off.

Tags: , , ,
Posted in Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestine | No Comments »

Olmert’s support crumbles in wake of cash payments revelations to Court

Wednesday, May 28th, 2008

Master politician Ehud Olmert has just now had the rug pulled out from him with the public announcement at a press conference in Jerusalem by Defense Minister (and former Prime Minister) Ehud Barak, who called for Olmert’s resignation a day after dramatic testimony from an American-Jewish businessman who said he gave Olmert a total of some $150,000 in cash over a fifteen-year period.

There has so far been no “quid pro quo” indicating that Olmert actually promised or was asked to do something specific for the businessman, Morris Talansky, in exchange for this money — something that would be necessary to make it a criminal act. Further testimony is not expected until July. Olmert’s lawyers have said they were confident that they could rebut the businessman’s testimony at that time. But the firm revelation of this conduct, and its unsavory appearance, are enough to have undone Olmert’s position.

While earlier solicitations appear to have been for political campaigns, starting with Olmert’s campaign (Olmert was then a member of the Likud Party) to become mayor of Jerusalem in 1991-92, replacing Teddy Kolleck, the businessman said that Olmert increasingly requested money for his own personal expenses – a $25,000 vacation in Italy, or upgrading of his airlines reservations from business to first class, or his hotel rooms to suites, and so forth – rather than for campaign purposes.
Olmert liked luxury, and to live well, the businessman told the Court on Monday: “I only know that he loved expensive cigars. I know he loved pens, watches. I found it strange,” then shrugged.
Olmert also asked for the money as loans, the businessman testified Monday – but, these “loans” were never repaid, the businessman said.

In advance of the 2003 primaries, the businessman said, Olmert asked him for $72,500 – a sum that the businessman said he paid. It was the last payment he was willing to make, he testified.

Perhaps most damning, the businessman told the Court that Olmert asked for the money to be given in cash – a way of avoiding banking and reporting controls. On at least one occasion, the businessman paid with his own credit card a $4,700 hotel bill run up by Olmert – which would also not show up on any monitoring of such transactions.

And, Olmert apparently did wrote letters and otherwise intervened on behalf of Talansky’s various business interests, though Talansky testified that he had not specifically asked Olmert specifically to do so.

It is revealing, however, to see the amount of time Olmert was willing to devote to whether or not a hotel would conclude a contract for his patron’s mini-bars, rather than to other more pressing affairs of state.

Olmert has, for example, exhibited a curious, if perhaps overtly political, lack of leadership in significant matters affecting the country – including his non-intervention in emotional calls for revenge and retaliation that threatened an East Jerusalem family, and the country’s ethnic relations, after the attack on a nationalist yeshiva in which 8 students and the apparent assailant were killed.

Talansky said he was only invited to one reception given by the Prime Minister – but never to his home. But, he said he did receive a very nice 70th birthday card, and was also invited, at the last minute, to attend Olmert’s address to the U.S. Congress — and to attend Olmert’s son’s wedding.

In addition, Talansky said, he would visit Olmert during his trips:”Whenever [Olmert’s assistant] Shula told him I was here, no matter what, he would always come out and greet me. A hug, a big hug. He hugged me”.

According to pool reports by members of the Foreign Press Association who were assigned to cover the Court testimony, Talansky said he looked at Olmert as a man who “could accomplish a great deal…as a man who hopefully would build the city (as Mayor of Jerusalem)”, and heal the divisions.
The FPA pool report said that “Talansky talked about how Israel not priority for American Jewry, [about] giving money to hospitals and to concerts and [about] you have to pay people to come like Birthright and they don’t care so much…He appreciated Olmert’s ‘ability to articulate, his ability to reach out to the American people, the largest and richest community of Jews in the world and we are losing them at the fastest rate you can imagine. And that’s why I supported him. That’s why I gave it to him. That’s why I supported the man, that’s why I overlooked frankly and honestly, a lot of things. I overlooked them, maybe I shouldn’t have, but I overlooked them’.”

If Olmert resigns, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni is positioned to replace him both as Kadima Party leader and as Prime Minister. Livni has been Israel’s most popular politician in polls over the past year,and has been Deputy Prime Minister for as least as long. Her call on Olmert to resign last year, after initial findings of the Winograd Commission about poor leadership during Israel’s “Second Lebanon War”, was brushed aside at the time with some irritation by Olmert. Her opponents — and some of her supporters — called on her to resign. To keep her busy, Olmert named her to head the Israeli negotiations team after the launch of the Annapolis Process whose aim is to make substantial progress towards the creation of a Palestinian State by the end of U.S. President George Bush’s term of office in January 2009.

If Olmert resigns and Livni takes over, there may not necessarily be early elections, at least not in the immediate future.

However, if he resists this call, defections from the current government will make early elections inevitable, even if Olmert could conceivably patch together a new coalition from various groups including the left wing Meretz party, who just may be persuaded to cooperate if it would otherwise mean a collapse of the current peace negotiations which Meretz supports and wishes would progress even faster.

Likud opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu — who opposes the whole Annapolis Process because it is supposedly stacked against Israel but who is credited with significant modernization of Israel’s economy — will be one of the principal beneficiaries of any call for early elections as a result of the current turmoil in Israeli politics.

It will be interesting to see What Barak himself will do now. It is not clear that he would throw his hat into the ring, at least immediately, if early elections are called. He may well position himself above the coming fray. As is, as Defense Minister, he exercises nearly complete control over all decisions affecting Israel’s security — a position that has been reinforced during Olmert’s term in office as a concession to keep Barak in line. Olmert recently has stated publicly that the Defense Minister effectively rules the occupied West Bank, and this has also given Barak a veto over whether or not Israel implements any part of the Roadmap is implemented — something which is said to be essential for successsful conclusion of the current peace process. Barak may be happy to remain, as he is at the moment, the major power broker in Israeli politics.

Meantime, both Syria and the Palestinian Authority have suggested that they fear Olmert’s troubles will affect the peace processes…

Tags: , ,
Posted in Israel, Middle East peace process, Palestine, Syria | No Comments »

« Older Entries