Netanyahu's True Colours

An interesting document has been published by Israel's Yediot Achronot and its on line publication, Ynet.  It is claimed that the document was prepared by officials in Prime Minister Netanyahu's government, something that the prime minister vehemently denies.  The document, which is addressed to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, purports to offer huge concessions on the part of the Israeli government in the search for a peace agreement.  Netanyahu claims that he would never have offered the things that were contained in the document, and accuses the newspaper's editor, the Moses family, of trying to play a dirty political trick to discredit him.  Another journalist, who claims to have investigated the matter of this document, says that the document is genuine but was developed by the US administration rather than by the Israeli government.  Another theory that has been put forward is that Israeli ambassador to the US, Ron Dermer, was involved in putting together the document with Netanyahu's blessing.

Whatever you wish to believe about the source of the document, it does contain some interesting information.  The document is formulated in the style of an offer to the Palestinians, which sets out major concessions on the part of the Israeli government.  The document was developed in August 2013 as part of the ill-fated peace talks under the sponsorship and auspices of US Secretary of State, John Kerry.  The concessions incorporated in the document include a proposal for Israel to revert back to the 1967 land borders with certain land swaps, a deal on allowing a Palestinian state a part of Jerusalem as its capital, and even a concession to allow the return of some Palestinian refugees.  One version of the story suggests that they were presented by Prime Minister Netanyahu's personal representative Yitzchak Molcho to Hussein Agha, affiliate of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, soon after the talks were initiated in July 2013.  If this is to be believed, these concessions represent possible compromise solutions to the main sticking points that the Palestinians continue to present as being the key reasons for the ongoing lack of agreement between themselves and Israel.

It is not clear whether or not the document was presented to the Palestinians, but it seems inconceivable that they were not at least aware of it.  It is interesting that there was never public comment made on their part about it.  Some would hold this up as evidence of the fact that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is not negotiating in good faith.  If he had been negotiating in good faith, and had received a proposal that provided a reasonable response to the main outstanding sticking points or was at least aware of it, it seems likely that he would have referred to it.  So is this an indication of bad faith?  It feels almost like the revelations that came out of Camp David in 2000 when then Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat is reported to have turned down major concessions offered by Ehud Barak, specifically on the matter of a solution to share Jerusalem.  There was shock that Barak had made such a far-reaching offer, and even greater shock that it was rejected.  This "outed" Yasser Arafat as negotiating in bad faith, and having no intention of reaching a peace agreement with Israel.  Is this also true of Mahmoud Abbas?

Even though there is a strong argument that the reason behind Abbas not being prepared to refer publicly to the offer is because he is negotiating in bad faith, I am not sure that this is the whole story.  I contend that he would have reason to jump on such a proposal even if he was not negotiating in good faith.  After all, gaining access to such substantial concessions on Israel's part, even if he never had any intention to stand by undertakings given in return, would represent greater possession for the Palestinians.  It could be argued that this would be major progress for them if their unholy quest is to destroy the Jews and take over Israel for themselves.  So why not try to promote it publicly?

It seems to me that Abbas is determined to remain a "struggle leader".  Unlike Nelson Mandela who led the struggle in order to transform society so that he could be a leader of a legitimate majority-rule democracy, Abbas does not see him or his people in this legitimate role.  Instead, they prefer to be in a state of "struggle" on an ongoing basis.  It seems as though the advantage of the international sympathy and support that the Palestinians are enjoying, could all be lost in the event that they become a full-fledged member of the international community.  The only explanation that I can offer for Abbas not jumping on the concessions that were set out in the letter, is because he wishes to remain the leader of a struggle.  The Palestinian leadership has demonstrated on numerous occasions that it is unable to fulfil the role of legitimate leaders who have the objective of guiding a country to fill its place among the nations, and be prepared to abide by all rights and obligations that come with that.  Perhaps Abbas fears that accepting the concessions would result in the Americans forcing him and his Palestinian Authority to become responsible leaders as required in the international arena.  The way in which the Palestinian leadership has dealt with refugees over the years, the way in which aid from the international community has been skimmed off for their own private consumption and the ongoing sponsorship of terror and wars against Israel represent only some of the evidence of their unwillingness to become a legitimate leadership, government and country.   It seems more convenient to be regarded as the downtrodden underdog of the world, with all the international support and sympathy that is associated with that.

There can be no doubt that the Palestinians are playing an extremely shrewd political game in achieving their objectives.  I have no doubt that the objectives of the leadership are not the same as their published objectives as laid down before the international community.  The so-called "occupation" that Israel is constantly accused of is without foundation, and their stated quest to set up a Palestinian state could have been achieved ages ago with a little political will.  It is a well documented fact that the State of Israel was established in 1948 with far less than has been offered to the Palestinians for their state.

It is also interesting for me to try to understand why Netanyahu has been so sensitive about the attribution of this document to him.  He was quick to say that he would never offer parts of Jerusalem as a capital of a Palestinian state, or agree to return to the 1967 borders.  This is all despite the fact that he has publicly accepted the establishment of a Palestinian state.  Was he concerned of a right-wing backlash against him in the days leading up to the election?  It may perversely serve to assist him in his election campaign, to show up the Palestinian leadership for what they are by acknowledging some association with the document.

Middle East politics is certainly a strange beast.  The only thing that one can be sure of, is that all is never what it seems.

Olmert is Found Innocent

The events that took place in the Jerusalem District Court last week were quite extraordinary.  For the first time in the history of the State of Israel, a former prime minister was in the dock to answer charges of corruption alleged to have taken place in a period before he became prime minister.  On this occasion, the court found that fomer Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is innocent of the main corruption charges against him.  Even though this decision sounds to be the end of a story, in many ways it is only the beginning of this story.

The headline that Olmert is innocent conceals the most important aspects of the story.  A sitting prime minister was forced to resign his office, accused of corruption when in a former public office.  Now, more than 3 years later, a court has decided that all he is guilty of is a relatively minor offence of breach of trust.  It is for this that a prime minister was driven from office at a time when the country was fighting wars on a number of fronts, and facing a major economic crisis.  Not only this.  During the intervening 3 year period while the prosecution gathered its evidence, interviewed high profile individuals under subpoena and brought the case to trial, the press found Olmert guilty and publicly castigated him at every opportunity.   In one of the most dramatic U-turns seen in the modern press, it took 2 days after the verdict exonerating Olmert, for the newspapers to publish the results of a new public opinion poll.  This poll shows that Olmert would muster more seats than current Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu in the next year's general election.  This "zig zag" (as such political about-turns are known in Hebrew) seems quite astonishing.  Has Olmert suddenly become the blue-eyed boy of the press after suffering such horrendous treatment at its hannds?

State prosecutors have been forced to explain their actions in bringing this case to trial.  There was more than a sniff of political motivation in evidence at the time that they announced their intention to indict Olmert three years ago.  Now that they have lost the gamble, the country is rightly asking questions about what drove them to make allegations against a prime minister, which could ultimately not be made to stick.  While the prosecution continue to defend their decision to bring this case to trial,  they admit that the verdict will create great difficulty for future corruption charges against high profile figures, in the event that these need to be brought.  Even though our political landscape is far from perfect and seems to be riddled with bad behaviour and questionable judgement, there is perhaps no harm in forcing prosecuting lawyers to think 100 times before bringing about the downfall of public figures.  Although I feel proud that Israeli democracy is strong enough to see even a sitting prime minister indicted, democracy also requires that the consequences of an acquittal be considered.  This is particularly true of high profile public figures.

The judges in the Olmert trial, while finding him not guilty, confirmed that unacceptable practices were taking place in his office.  His bureau chief, Shula Zaken, was found guilty on corruption charges even though her boss was acquitted.  The basis of his acquittal was simply the fact that the prosecution was unable to prove that he knew what was going on, rather than the fact that it did not happen.  This serves to reinforce that practices of public officials in Israel leave a great deal to be desired.  There can be no doubt that the questionable and corruptive practices which were proven to have taken place in Olmert's office when he was the Mayor of Jerusalem, are practices that are established in public life and occur in numerous public offices up and down the country.  The message that such behaviour is unacceptable and needs to be stamped out was unfortunately completely drowned out by the headlines of Olmert's acquittal.

Although Olmert has escaped from this sorry saga, he still faces corruption charges in the so-called "Holyland Affair" in a Tel Aviv court.  Prosecution officials have already begun to re-examine the file of charges against him in this case, for fear that the charges could go the same way as the previous case.  They are well aware of the enormous damage that they would suffer if they lose this case as well.

Olmert seems happy to escape the public glare for now, and slip into the background.  There is no doubt, however, that this will not be allowed to continue for long - this is a man who has spent so many years in the public arena, that it seems unlikely that he will quietly fade away.  Olmert has said he has no interest in returning to politics, but it is difficult to take these words at face value for now.  The acquittal could not have come at a better time for the Kadima party.  The party runs the risk of disbanding at the next election due to its poor showings.  The prospect of Olmert returning to politics and heading up the party has created a great deal of interest, and even some expectation.  There are those who see Olmert beating Bibi to become prime minister at the head of a Kadima government.  The most recent opinion polls seem to support this. I find it difficult to see this euphoria lasting until the next election, and I still predict that Netanyahu will keep the hot seat.  I do think that Kadima could be saved if Olmert returns to head up the party.  If not, I believe it will be consigned to the dustbin filled with failed political parties