August 7, 2008
Is the death knell tolling for the peace negotiations as a result of Ehud Olmert’s dramatic announcement that he is stepping down from the post of prime minister? Will the Palestinians react to the lame-duck government that has come into being by refusing to negotiate with it? Can Olmert continue to negotiate under the new circumstances?
Illustration of Ehud Olmert by Barrie Maguire
Olmert has made it plain — he said so in his declaration on July 30 — that as long as he is prime minister he will continue the talks in an endeavor to reach peace agreements with the Palestinians and the Syrians. Our political pundits believe that the Kadima Party contenders who are battling to take Olmert’s place will not succeed in establishing an alternative government once Olmert ceases to be head of the party.
People close to the negotiations believe that an agreement can be achieved in the coming months.
If that is so, Olmert will continue to be prime minister until after elections are held and a new government is sworn in, meaning he could maintain his present position until next spring. This is plenty of time to conclude at least a shelf agreement with the Palestinians, even if the question of Jerusalem prevents it from being comprehensive.
By contrast, Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of the Knesset opposition, has made it equally plain that as head of a caretaker government Olmert has no authority to take meaningful decisions that would bind future governments. Netanyahu intends to galvanize the public and the opposition parties to prevent Olmert from continuing the negotiations. He will, however, have no legal means to prevent the present government from continuing to seek agreements both with the Palestinians and the Syrians; all he can do is to try to delegitimize in the eyes of the public any results that this government may achieve.
We can therefore expect to see continued efforts, both by Olmert and by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, to reach an agreement before this government peters out. At the same time, we can expect a massive campaign on the part of the opposition against the government’s efforts, aimed also at the Palestinians. “Don’t talk to a lame duck that can’t deliver,” the campaign will be saying. “You are wasting your time.”
How will Palestinians react? There has been huge skepticism among Palestinians from the outset of the negotiations. There has been as little belief among them that Israelis will deliver an acceptable peace proposal as there has been among Israelis that Palestinians are ready to make compromises in order to achieve peace. Yet President Mahmoud Abbas has no choice. If he walks away now from the negotiations he will be handing victory to Hamas on a silver platter.
Moreover, in spite of the skepticism, progress has been made, so much so that people close to the negotiations believe that an agreement can be achieved in the coming months and that the fight, at least on the Israeli side, will be about its acceptance as a valid document by the Knesset and the public.
In such a situation, a determined and forthright policy move on the part of the United States becomes essential. Annapolis and the peace negotiations that sprung from it were, after all, an American initiative. One of the cardinal weaknesses of American involvement in peace initiatives over the years has been a lack of accountability. Time and again, Israelis and Palestinians have broken promises and ignored commitments. How many times have we promised to curtail construction in settlements, to remove illegal outposts, to dismantle checkpoints? And what happened to the PLO commitment to collect illegal arms in the Oslo period and to act against terrorism?
In his Negotiating Arab-Israeli Peace, Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer writes of the need for “exacting consequences when commitments are broken or agreements not implemented.” The outgoing American administration has a great interest in the success of Annapolis and its aftermath; the least it can do is pressure Israelis and Palestinians to make every effort to reach an acceptable agreement.
The P.A., with Hamas breathing down its neck, cannot afford to turn its back on the negotiations. Nor can Olmert, for a number of reasons. He sincerely believes in the need for an end to the conflict and a two-state solution, and he dearly wants to leave a positive legacy when he steps down from politics. The inclination of most Israelis — and probably Palestinians as well — is to write off the negotiations as “mission impossible,” given Olmert’s demise.
This may well be so. Yet Olmert, the ultimate politician, will redouble his efforts to reach an agreement, and Olmert, despite everything, should not be underestimated.
David Kimche, president of the Israel Council for Foreign Relations, wrote this essay for bitterlemons.org. He is a former director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com
