Skip to main content

Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank

Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank

By ETHAN BRONNER
Published: September 29, 2008
JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all of the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at a cabinet meeting on Sunday. In an interview published Monday, he called for new thinking.
Related
Times Topics: Ehud Olmert
He also dismissed as “megalomania” any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue.
In an unusually frank and soul-searching interview granted after he resigned to fight corruption charges — he remains interim prime minister until a new government is sworn in — Mr. Olmert discarded longstanding Israeli defense doctrine and called for radical new thinking, in words that are sure to stir controversy as his expected successor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, tries to build a coalition.
“What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me,” Mr. Olmert told the newspaper Yediot Aharonot in the interview on the occasion of the Jewish new year, observed from Monday evening till Wednesday evening. “The time has come to say these things.”
He said that traditional Israeli defense strategists had learned nothing from past experiences and that they seemed stuck in the considerations of the 1948 war of independence.
“With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop,” he said. “All these things are worthless.”
He added, “Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security?”
Over the last year, Mr. Olmert has publicly castigated himself for his earlier right-wing views and he did so again in this interview. On Jerusalem, for example, he said: “I am the first who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the entire city. I admit it. I am not trying to justify retroactively what I did for 35 years. For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth.”
He said that maintaining sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem, Israel’s official policy, would involve bringing 270,000 Palestinians inside Israel’s security barrier. It would mean a continuing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents with front-end loaders.
“A decision has to be made,” he said. “This decision is difficult, terrible, a decision that contradicts our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish people for 2,000 years.”
The government’s public stand on Jerusalem until now has been to assert that the status of the city was not under discussion. But Mr. Olmert made clear that the eastern, predominantly Arab, sector had to be yielded “with special solutions” for the holy sites.
On peace with the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert said in the interview: “We face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace.”
Elsewhere in the interview, when discussing a land swap with the Palestinians, he said the exchange would have to be “more or less one to one.”
Mr. Olmert also addressed the question of Syria, saying that Israel had to be prepared to give up the Golan Heights but that in turn Damascus knew it had to change the nature of its relationship with Iran and its support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia.
On Iran, Mr. Olmert said Israel would act within the international system, adding: “Part of our megalomania and our loss of proportions is the things that are said here about Iran. We are a country that has lost a sense of proportion about itself.”
Reaction from the Israeli right was swift. Avigdor Lieberman, who leads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was “endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly.”
He added that those who thought Israel’s problem was a lack of defined borders — as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview — “are ignoramuses who don’t understand anything, and they invite war.”
As they reacted to Mr. Olmert’s remarks, Palestinian negotiators said it was satisfying to hear Mr. Olmert’s words but they said the words did not match what he had offered them so far. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, told Palestinian Radio that it would have been better if Mr. Olmert had taken this position while in office rather than while leaving it and that Mr. Olmert had not yet presented a detailed plan for a border between Israel and a Palestinian state.
In theory, Mr. Olmert will continue peace negotiations while awaiting the new government. But analysts generally say that having been forced to resign his post, he will not be able to close a deal.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Dr. Randa Abdel Fattah. De-Invited by Association: When Grief Becomes a Pretext and Palestinian Identity a Liability

How Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah Was Silenced in the Name of “Sensitivity” In a remarkable feat of moral gymnastics, Australia’s literary establishment has once again demonstrated how grief can be weaponised, principles suspended, and Palestinian identity rendered dangerously “inappropriate ” —all in the name of cultural sensitivity. Dr. Randa Abdel-Fattah , a respected author, academic, and public intellectual, was quietly de-invited from Adelaide Writers’ Week following the Bondi Junction massacre. Not because she had any connection—real, implied, or imagined—to the atrocity. Not because she endorsed violence. Not because she violated any law or ethical standard. But because, apparently, the mere presence of a Palestinian Muslim woman who speaks about justice is now considered culturally unsafe during national mourning . One wonders: unsafe for whom? The Logic of the Absurd Festival organisers were careful—almost impressively so—to state that Dr. Abdel-Fattah had nothing to do wi...

Ana Kasparian: The Voice That Won’t Be Silent — A Call for Truth in an Age of Power

  Ana Kasparian is one of the most recognized and outspoken voices in contemporary political media. As a co-host of The Young Turks — a trailblazing online news and commentary program — she has spent nearly two decades dissecting U.S. politics, media, power, and foreign policy with unapologetic clarity and fierce conviction. She is not just a commentator — she is a truth-seeker who challenges power at every turn , refusing to soften her words for comfort. Schooled in journalism and political science, Ana’s commentary continues to mobilize millions, especially younger generations who feel unheard in mainstream discourse. A Voice Against the Status Quo Ana’s rhetoric can be bold, controversial, and deeply passionate — because she refuses to accept narratives that obscure the underlying truth about power and influence. On American democracy and foreign policy, she strikes at the heart of what many hesitate to articulate: “ We don’t actually live in a true democracy here in t...

Gaza and the Collapse of World Order: When the Guardian of Human Rights Sounds the Alarm

There are moments when the language of diplomacy fails, when caution becomes complicity, and when silence becomes an accomplice to destruction. On January 9, 2026, Agnès Callamard—Secretary General of Amnesty International—crossed that threshold. Her words were unambiguous, unprecedented, and devastating: The United States is destroying world order. Israel has been doing so for the last two years. Germany, through complicity and repression, is helping govern its demise. This was not activist rhetoric. It was a diagnosis from the very institution tasked with guarding the moral and legal architecture of the modern world. The Collapse of the Post-War Moral Architecture The international order that emerged after World War II was built on a promise: never again . Never again genocide. Never again collective punishment. Never again impunity for powerful states. That promise was codified in international law, human rights conventions, and multilateral institutions. But Gaza has...

Rebranding Genocide: When Killing Learns New Words

  There are moments in history when crimes do not end — they simply learn new language. Gaza is living inside such a moment. The bombs have not stopped falling. The children have not stopped dying. The displaced have not stopped freezing in tents pitched atop rubble that was once their homes. What has changed is the vocabulary . And in the modern age, vocabulary is power . If you can rename atrocity, you can anesthetize conscience. First, it was called self-defense — a phrase emptied of meaning by its repetition. Then it became a war , despite the grotesque imbalance: one side armed with one of the most advanced militaries on earth, backed by the world’s most powerful empire ; the other a besieged civilian population without an army, navy, air force, tanks, or safe shelter. Now it is branded a ceasefire — a word invoked not to stop violence, but to conceal it. This is not peace. It is genocide with a quieter soundtrack. The Illusion of Restraint A slowed rate of killing is not m...

Citizens on Paper, Expendable in Practice Arab Israelis, October 7, and the Failure of International Law Inside the “Only Democracy”

  Israel tells the world it is the only democracy in the Middle East . Democracies, we are reminded, protect all citizens equally—especially minorities—especially in times of crisis. Now look at Palestinian citizens of Israel , roughly 20% of the population , in the months following October 7 . Then ask: what exactly does citizenship mean when the state will not protect your life? The Forgotten Fifth of the Population Arab citizens of Israel vote. They hold passports. They pay taxes. They are citizens in the narrow, bureaucratic sense. But international law does not define citizenship by paperwork. It defines it by: Equal protection Non-discrimination The right to life Equal access to justice On those measures, Israel is not merely failing—it is structurally violating its obligations . A Murder Epidemic the State Chooses Not to Stop Long before October 7, Arab towns inside Israel were drowning in violence: Illegal weapons proliferated Organized crime flourished ...