And as if these earlier problems aren’t enough, it seems Olmert is pulling the plug on the Annapolis Peace Initiative. Last week, he announced that his final status peace discussions with Palestinian Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas would not include any mention of Jerusalem. This means that Olmert is attempting to negotiate a final status agreement while ignoring a major stumbling block to such an accord.
All of these failures have combined to hurt the image of the Israeli government, domestically and abroad, and bolster that of the radical Palestinian militant group, Hamas. If the violent rulers of Gaza gain legitimacy over the more conciliatory emergency regime of President Abbas in Ramallah, it will be catastrophic for Israel.
Why, then, is Israel’s prime minister retarding the peace process in ways that are extremely detrimental to the country in the short and long term? Olmert has decided that this is the appropriate action to take because his political situation is tenuous. At the moment, he heads a coalition of only 67 seats in the 120-seat Israeli parliament. One of the parties in the government is Shas, an ultra-orthodox and ethnically Sephardic party. In the past, Shas has been one of the few religious parties to allow some wiggle room for negotiations with Palestinians, but as of late they have begun to take a more hard-line stance. In their most recent threat to Olmert, they declared that any mention of Jerusalem in any final status agreement would lead to their immediate withdrawal from the coalition.
This threat could be fatal for the government, as it strikes at the heart of Olmert’s stated commitment to a comprehensive peace agreement by the end of 2008. However, if Olmert calls Shas’ bluff and talks about Jerusalem anyway, the party will most likely bolt from the coalition, taking 12 seats with it and leading to new elections, which will surely vote Olmert out of office.
This is clearly a case of political extortion. Olmert is being forced to choose between his office and the good of his nation. Unfortunately, but unsurprisingly, he is choosing himself. Recent polls of the Israeli public show that the vast majority of Israel’s population would support negotiations with the Palestinians on all issues. However, given the current weakness of the coalition, only a new parliament will have a mandate to pursue peace. If Olmert calls new elections and the Israeli Left and Center make the Annapolis negotiations the main election issue—as they almost certainly would be—the new leadership would emerge with the ability to negotiate a comprehensive settlement without worrying about political threats. The catch is, the new leadership would have to be headed by a figure other than Ehud Olmert, who has clearly forfeited the trust of the Israeli people. But, as the has shown throughout his career, Ehud Olmert is primarily concerned with the welfare of Ehud Olmert. Instead of taking these necessary steps that would help move this peace process along, he is trying to force Abbas to acquiesce to his demands on the negotiations.
With the popularity of Hamas increasing by the day, such self-interested intransigence runs counter to the interests of the Israeli people. Olmert cannot afford to show the Palestinians that Israel is not willing to discuss reasonable steps toward peace. If he continues to do so, he will prop up the Hamas-Gaza regime and cause a more hard-lined regime in the West Bank to emerge. Israel cannot afford to have a leader who will make choices to further his own career at the cost of the nation at such an important moment in history. Israel needs a leader who will negotiate and hammer out issues from a political position of power, with a tone of reconciliation that will secure the Jewish state’s future for years to come. Ehud Olmert is not that leader. Thus, he must go.