Yourish.com

With the end of his political career at hand (or perhaps in a half year) it’s hard to remember that there was a time when Ehud Olmert was considered an up and comer in the Likud party. (He did rise to the top, of course. But as Prime Minister he never electrified.)

Back in April 1988 he participated in Nightline’s famous “townhall meeting” between Palestinians and Israelis. The New York Times reviewed the meeting. It recounts perhaps the most dramatic point in the event:

What was inescapable, though, was that on some matters they seemed as united as the Palestinians. After Mr. Erakat’s impassioned speech, Mr. Zucker attacked him. He said, equally impassioned, that Syrians and Jordanians had killed more Palestinians than had Israelis.

The audience of Arabs and Jews in the theater – getting the audience together may have been the act of a sovereign power, too – responded with murmurs and applause. Some of the Jews, obviously, wanted to back up Mr. Zucker.

”I don’t need your applause,” he said curtly to the audience. He also said the Palestinians ”won’t recognize my right to live.” The Palestinians didn’t look at him, although all four Israelis stared intently at them.

In Erakat’s “impassioned” speech he explicitly compared Israel to Nazi Germany. That was too much even for Peace Now advocate Zucker, who said that he might be able to make peace with the others but not with Erakat.

(Previously I blogged about this townhall here. I was a bit premature.)

If there’s been a feeling that Olmert might hold on indefinitely in the face of this investigation, it’s been because we’ve been here before.

In 1996 after Binyamin Netanyahu was elected Prime Minister, he was stymied in his attempt to form a government as 3 men he had wanted in his cabinet were in legal jeopardy. The NYT reported:

Adding yet another complication to Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu’s tangled efforts to form a coalition, the Attorney General has advised him that two candidates for senior Cabinet positions face legal problems.

The notices coincided with reports that Mr. Netanyahu wanted to replace Attorney General Michael Ben-Yair, who was appointed by Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin. But Mr. Netanyahu denied the reports, and it was unclear whether the legal actions or the leaks came first.

The affected candidates were Jerusalem’s Mayor, Ehud Olmert, one of the most popular members of Mr. Netanyahu’s party, the Likud, and Rafael Eitan, a right-wing former general who allied his small Tsomet Party with the Likud on the promise of a senior Cabinet post.

The other cabinet member whose appointment was stopped by Ben Yair was Yaacov Ne’eman who was eventually acquitted and was appointed Finance Minister later. The charges against Gen. Eitan, if I remember correctly, didn’t even make it to court. And Ehud Olmert was acquitted.

Jerusalem Mayor Ehud Olmert has charged that former attorney-general Michael Ben-Yair indicted him “because he [Ben-Yair] is a wicked person.”

“I am convinced that Ben-Yair had premeditated ulterior motives, because that is the kind of person he is. Everyone who knows Ben-Yair knows that he acted out of evil intent, to settle personal accounts and pave his own way to political options,” Olmert was quoted telling the Bar Association’s journal, Halishka.

Olmert was acquitted on September 28 by Tel Aviv District Court on charges of campaign finance fraud in connection with the 1988 Knesset election and the 1989 local council elections, when he was the …

I think that Ben-Yair’s efforts were politically, not legally motivated, but given the similarity in his outrage now, to his outrage then, I wonder if maybe Olmert was lucky the first time. Maybe he figured that if he was innocent the first time, he’s innocent now.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Not surprisingly the Washington Post’s coverage of Olmert’s announcement that he would step down after the Kadima primaries, focuses on the peace process.

Palestinian officials reacted cautiously, with Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki saying that Olmert’s decision would not change much, the Associated Press reported. “It’s true that Olmert was enthusiastic about the peace process and he spoke about this process with great attention, but it has not achieved any progress or breakthrough,” Maliki said.

Israel and the Palestinian Authority, whose influence is limited to the West Bank, renewed peace talks at a U.S.-sponsored conference in Annapolis, Md., in November, after a seven-year hiatus. More recently, Israel has renewed indirect peace talks with Syria, with the latest round, mediated by Turkey, concluding Thursday.

Olmert said he would continue to push for peace as long as he is in office, but it appears unlikely that Israel will make any major decisions on concessions to either Syria or the Palestinians until a new government is formed.

Surprisingly though, the reporter failed to mention that Shaul Mofaz is also contending to succeed Olmert as head of Kadima, and mentions only Tzipi Livni as the frontrunner.

At the end of the article Kadima’s viability was questioned:

Gerald Steinberg, a professor of political science at Bar-Ilan University, said the most likely scenario was that Israel would go to new elections. That would pit Livni against former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, leader of the opposition Likud Party. Polls show Netanyahu with a 10-point lead over Livni if the elections were held today.

“She will have a hard time convincing voters that she has the necessary security experience,” Steinberg said. “We’re talking about issues like a possible war with Iran or Hamas in Gaza. These are difficult situations.”

Thursday’s announcement could also bode ill for Kadima. The party was founded by former prime minister Ariel Sharon in November 2005 to advocate for a Palestinian state in the West Bank. Olmert was thrust into the leadership of Kadima in January 2006 after Sharon suffered a massive stroke.

“Kadima is a very fragile structure that Sharon put together, and it could well shatter after the primary,” Steinberg said.

Daniel Pipes said the same thing, two years ago.

I was skeptical of Kadima from the very start, dismissing it just one week after it came into existence as an escapist venture that “will (1) fall about as abruptly as it has arisen and (2) leave behind a meager legacy.” If Sharon’s career is now over, so is Kadima’s. He created it, he ran it, he decided its policies, and none else can now control its fissiparous elements. Without Sharon, Kadima’s constituent elements will drift back to their old homes in Labour, Likud, and elsewhere. With a thud, Israeli politics return to normal.

Well that didn’t happen as Olmert proved to be able to keep Kadima afloat. However, I suspect that that’s because he’s an excellent political operator. Losing a half to two thirds of the party’s Knesset representation will likely turn it into a circular firing squad.

While focusing largely on the peace process, the NY Times’s report is a lot more comprehensive than the Washington Post (and doesn’t ignore Mofaz. It also brought this quote:

Mr. Olmert’s drive for diplomatic achievements “might frighten some,” said Abraham Diskin, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. There are Israelis who do not believe in agreements, and others who support the peace effort but do not feel comfortable having their leader negotiate desperately with an eye on the clock. “I belong to that second category,” Mr. Diskin said.

While the NY Times mentions that the PA claims that the announcement is an internal Israeli matter, the doctor of Holocaust denial has thrown an tantrum and declared that he will go home if no one pays attention to him. No one noticed.

Still neither the Times nor the Post seem much concerned with the threats Israel faces from Iran and its proxies, just the peace process, which I suppose is reflective of the American view.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad