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

Ceasefires, Fireworks, and the Fine Art of Calling Ashes “Peace”

  There is something almost poetic about declaring victory while the smoke is still rising. Not poetic in the romantic sense—more in the way a press release can be mistaken for reality if repeated often enough. So here we are. Another “ceasefire.” Another “agreement.” Another feather in the ever-expanding, never-examined peacemaking cap of Donald Trump . Israel–Iran. Israel–Hezbollah. Israel–Hamas. One could be forgiven for thinking peace has broken out everywhere—if peace meant pauses between airstrikes . The Theater of Victory On cue, Benjamin Netanyahu steps forward, flanked by ministers who speak the language of triumph as if it were immune to contradiction. “Iran weakened.” “Hezbollah contained.” “Total victory.” It all sounds remarkably similar to past declarations—just before the next round of fighting. Because here’s the inconvenient detail buried beneath the applause: none of the stated objectives were actually achieved. Iran still has its missiles. Hezboll...

The Endurance War: When Pain Becomes Strategy

  There are wars fought with missiles. There are wars fought with money. And then there are wars like this one— where the real battlefield is human endurance , and the real weapon is pain tolerance . The blockade of the Strait of Hormuz is being presented as a masterstroke by —a clean, calculated move to choke Iran’s economic lifeline. But beneath the polished language of “strategic pressure” lies a far simpler, far more uncomfortable truth: This is not a test of power. It is a test of who can suffer longer. And in that contest, Washington may have chosen the wrong opponent. The Fantasy of Economic Collapse The theory is elegant: Strangle oil exports Collapse revenue Trigger unrest Force surrender It is also, historically speaking, remarkably ineffective . A major study by RAND Corporation on coercive economic strategies concluded that: “ Economic sanctions alone rarely achieve major political objectives, particularly against regimes with strong internal sec...

When a Constitution Becomes a Decorative Document America’s Latest War, and the Curious Death of Accountability

  There is an imperial comedy unfolding before the world — dark enough to be tragedy, absurd enough to be satire. This is, after all, the very “model democracy” United States  has spent decades promising to export to humanity — by missile, by occupation, by sanctions, by “shock and awe,” by solemn lectures on liberty delivered from polished podiums standing atop broken nations. This was the sermon preached to Iraq. Imposed on Afghanistan. Invoked amid the destruction of Libya . Entangled in the agony of Syria. Echoed through the devastation of Yemen.  The doctrine was always wrapped in noble language: Rule of law. Democratic institutions. Constitutional order. Checks and balances. How magnificent those words sound — right up until power decides they are optional at home. What a remarkable export product: A democracy where Congress yields, courts hesitate, executive power expands, wars begin first and legal arguments arrive later — wrapped in flags, marketed...

The Confession Without Consequence When Empire Admits the Crime… and Funds It Anyway

  There are moments in history when power accidentally tells the truth. Not because conscience triumphs. Not because morality suddenly awakens. But because the wreckage becomes too vast to keep describing as “complicated.” That moment arrived when — a pillar of Washington’s foreign policy establishment, veteran diplomat, architect of negotiations, insider to empire’s machinery — uttered words that would once have been politically unthinkable: “ Prime Minister Netanyahu has led us down a road — and we have been part of it — that has, in essence, created a genocide in Gaza that has destabilize d the Middle East.” Read that again. Not they . We. Not Israel alone . We have been part of it. That single phrase — “we have been part of it” — may be one of the most consequential admissions made by a former senior American official in modern Middle Eastern history. For decades, Washington supplied the bombs, shielded the diplomacy, vetoed accountability, framed slaughter as...

When the Readers Move Ahead of the Columnist

  There is something quietly seismic happening—not in the corridors of power, not in carefully worded opinion columns, but in the comment sections beneath them. While attempts to diagnose where Israel “lost its way,” the readers seem to be asking a far more unsettling question: What if it didn’t lose its way at all? What if this is the way? For decades, the comforting narrative was simple: the problem was leadership. Replace , and the moral arc would gently correct itself. Peace would again become plausible. Restraint would return. The “real Israel” would re-emerge. But the readers are no longer convinced. They are pointing to something deeper—something less convenient. Not a deviation. A pattern. Not an exception. A structure. Because when policies persist across decades, across governments, across crises—at what point do we stop calling them mistakes and start calling them design? The Quiet Collapse of a Narrative One reader puts it bluntly: Palestinians have alr...