Pray for Ehud Olmert

Joel C. Rosenberg reminds us that prayers are also in order for Ehud Olmert.  Amotz Asa-El, in an insightful column, suggests Olmert has the potential to be a unifying force (assuming he is not too tired).

Some insight into his views may be provided by a Q&A session Olmert held on June 15, 2005 with readers of Haaretz:

Q.  In your opinion, what would a final peace agreement with the Palestinians look like? How much of the West Bank will be given to the Palestinians along with sectors of East Jerusalem?

Ehud Olmert:  I think it will be premature at this point to give a comprehensive response on the issue of a permanent peace agreement between us and the Palestinians. It depends on so many uncertain elements that it would be simplistic and artificial. However, I already said a few times what I think the guiding principles should be for a permanent agreement.

We have to separate Jews from Palestinians. Therefore, we'll have to pull out of the areas densely populated by Palestinians and make sure that Israel has a stable and permanent Jewish majority in the State of Israel. Or in other words, maximum Jews and minimum Arabs.

Consequently, we will have to dismantle many isolated settlements in the West Bank and retain the major blocs of townships that were created.

I think that we should forever keep the city of Jerusalem undivided. The Old City, the Temple Mount, the Mount of Olives, Sheikh Jarah, Ras el-Amud, Beit Hanina and so on will remain part of the State of Israel.

Q.  Why don't you support the Geneva Accord?

Ehud Olmert:  I don't support the Geneva draft for three reasons:

1. It implies a complete withdrawal to the 1967 lines, which is acutely dangerous to the future existence of Israel.

2. It implies the redivision of Jerusalem, which is totally unacceptable.

3. It established the basis for the solution of the refugee problem on UN resolution 194, which laid the foundation for the Palestinian claim for right of return.

All these three elements are totally unacceptable.

Comments

[Cynic]

"Middle Israel: Labor's day after"

Reading Amotz Asa-El's latest column one realises that security is just one of the sides to the story:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1136361019020&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

one is left with the horrifying scenario of the Israeli economy reverting to the socialist hell of high taxes, corruption and nepotism.

"IN ITS current mind-set, Labor's mantra is compassion and its tool is tax and spend. Where does this fixation originate? Does concern for the needy really have to entail bloated public spending? Do the jobless, not to mention the foodless, gain anything from the fact that thousands of social parasites earn redundant salaries in our sprawling public sector, which stretches from the Electric Corporation's 13,000 employees and their nationally highest NIS 13,000 average monthly wage, all the way down to the rebbetzin who runs the most godforsaken hamlet's mikve? "

Maybe it is time to bring out the facts about Peretz's term as labour union boss.

So maybe it in order to pray for Olmert to succeed not only from the security point of view but in providing an economically dynamic Israel.

[RR]

The column that Cynic cites is worth reading in its entirety.

Here’s another excerpt:

“Labor's economic predicament is reminiscent of its territorial hump. . . . Labor has a fundamental problem with mainstream Israelis, who reflexively associate that party with the Oslo misadventure. Incredibly, Labor is now squandering a golden opportunity to break loose from that stigma by demanding the copyright on the idea of national disengagement, and disowning the idea of regional engagement, whose masterminds, Peres and Beilin, are no longer with that party.

“A de-Peresized Labor could say it is returning to the Rabin mind-set, which was suspicious of the New Middle East vision and merely sought an end to Israel's rule over millions of hostile Palestinians. Moreover, it could justly claim that the wall and disengagement projects that have become the pillars of the new Israeli consensus are essentially reincarnations of the old Allon Plan that was Labor's real design for the territories until Peres and Beilin took it (and the rest of us) to Oslo. . . .

“Ironically, the same conditional reflex that keeps Labor from restoring its original territorial platform -- the refusal to admit mistakes -- also plagues its economic platform. Yet that is just where Labor can outflank Netanyahu and Olmert. . .

“Israel's economic predicament is in the size of its public sector. Had it been visionary, Labor would say "Bibi did a fine job, but we'll do a better job, because just like only Sharon could evict settlers, only Labor can shrink the public sector."”

This suggests two things to me: First, as in American elections, the party that successfully captures the broad middle, while holding on to its base, wins elections.

Second, Netanyahu needs to emphasize his economic accomplishments at least as much as his security credentials. The article makes it clear that Netanyahu’s economic achievement, while generally acknowledged, is still underestimated.

Less remembered, but equally courageous, was his appearance before a joint session of Congress in 1996, in which he pledged to create economic independence for Israel and gradually decreasing need for U.S. aid. That is part of security too.