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

When the President Sounds the Alarm, But the Government Looks Away.

A President's Moral Warning Israeli presidents traditionally avoid political confrontation. Their role is largely ceremonial and symbolic, intended to unify rather than divide. Yet Herzog chose to speak openly about something many observers have documented for years: the erosion of moral restraints. His language was unusually severe. Warning of what he called " a terrible process of brutalization " within Israeli society, Herzog lamented that " there are segments among us that are barely shocked by violence anymore " while " certain other segments treat it lightly." Perhaps most alarming was his warning that extremist conduct is no longer confined to society's fringes. Such behavior, he said, is " threatening to enter the mainstream ." The significance of the speech lies not merely in what was said, but in who said it. When a country's ceremonial head of state feels compelled to warn that brutality is becoming normalized, the ...

From Karachi to the Palestine Book Awards: The Journey of The Livestreamed Genocide.

Honored to share that my latest work, The Livestreamed Genocide: A Civilization That Watched and Scrorrlled, has officially been submitted for consideration for the 2026 . 🇵🇸📚 Today, the physical manuscripts of the five-volume series were formally dispatched from Karachi to the distinguished judging panel in London and the United States as part of the awards review process. This project was written as both a historical chronicle and a moral inquiry into the age of digital witnessing — an era in which atrocities are no longer hidden from the world, yet are consumed in real time through screens, timelines, and livestreams. Grounded in documented evidence, authenticated sources, and extensive independent research, the series examines the relationship between modern media, public consciousness, political silence, and the normalization of suffering in the digital age. This work was researched, written, compiled, edited, and prepared independently over countless long days and nights....

When Violence Becomes the Language of the State Israel’s Internal Crisis and the Brutality Long Normalized in the West Bank

  The image of prosecutor Salah Khalil Na’ameh’s battered face shocked many Israelis because it shattered a dangerous illusion: that state violence lmk can remain confined to Palestinians indefinitely without eventually consuming Israeli society itself. For Palestinians, especially in the occupied West Bank, such scenes are tragically familiar. A man beaten bloody by armed forces. Masked officers storming homes. Security forces accused of fabricating narratives later contradicted by video evidence. Citizens pleading for protection while police either stand aside or participate. What shocked many Israelis was not merely the brutality itself — but the identity of the victim. Na’ameh was not a villager from Hebron or a shepherd from Masafer Yatta. He was an Arab citizen of Israel. A state prosecutor. A man who worked within the Israeli legal system itself. And even he allegedly found himself helpless before a police force critics increasingly describe as politicized, radicaliz...

When Humanity Becomes Illegal The kidnapping of conscience on the high seas

  History will remember many crimes of this age. It will remember the bombs . It will remember the starvation . It will remember children pulled from rubble in pieces small enough to fit in their fathers’ hands. But history will also remember something colder, uglier, and perhaps more damning: It will remember how compassion itself was hunted down. Not long ago, the language of the West was filled with grand declarations: rule of law, human rights, international order, civilized values. Today those words hang like burnt banners over a moral wasteland. In international waters near Crete, a humanitarian flotilla carrying activists attempting to challenge the siege of Gaza was intercepted. More than 170 activists were detained. Most were released. But two men — Thiago Avila and Saif Abu Keshek — were taken away into Israeli custody, accused of aiding “the enemy,” while governments in Spain and Brazil demanded their release. Read that again. Not arms traffickers. N...

At 78, a Nation at War With Itself

There is a haunting irony in watching a state built on the promise of refuge become trapped in fear of its own reflection. For decades, **** was one of the men entrusted with Israel’s sword — soldier, commander, prime minister, architect of its security doctrine. Not a radical voice. Not an outsider. Not a dissident shouting from the margins. An insider. And when insiders begin speaking the language of alarm, history listens differently . His warning is not that Israel may be destroyed by rockets, tunnels, militias, or regional enemies. His warning is more unsettling: that Israel may survive every external war — and lose itself from within. That is a far more tragic form of defeat. A nation can repel missiles and still watch its institutions hollow out . A nation can dominate battlefields and still become morally exhausted. A nation can claim victory abroad while quietly burying democracy at home . This is the paradox now confronting Israel at 78: militarily formidable, technologic...