What's next on the agenda?

My print weekend column (a joint venture with Aluf Benn) deals with a couple of things, but the English version is a shortened one, from which the part on Iraq was omitted. Here in the blog you'll get the shortened-shorter version - meaning, just a couple of paragraphs.

Here we go:

Bush

This is the time to prepare for a new era in Washington. The problems are old, but the means of dealing with them will be updated and adjusted to a new political situation. That is true both in Washington and in Israel. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who on his way to California to deliver an address at the General Assembly (GA) of Jewish communities will be visiting the U.S. president in the midst of the election night hangover, just a few days after he discovers how painful the blow has been, will also represent a government that differs from the one he represented during his previous visit. Although he stands more erect after bringing Avigdor Lieberman into the coalition, his popularity has yet to be rehabilitated, and he continues to search for a real agenda.

It will be an interesting and strange meeting, to which the two sides will arrive without completely synchronized expectations: Olmert is interested mainly in Iran, Bush is interested first and foremost in Iraq, and also wants to find a way to progress in the Palestinian arena, to improve his standing in the Arab world, even if his people admit that at the moment it is hard to see exactly how that will happen.

Olmert

Last Monday, at the conference of the Israel Center for Management, Olmert delivered his most important speech since coming to power in January? In his speech Olmert replied to the claims that he had no agenda, that he was zigzagging and that he pulled out the initiative for changing the system of government and instituting a constitution only for reasons of survival. "A government deals each time with one central issue," explained Olmert, "and even before the elections we promised to deal with stabilizing the government system." He buried the Syrian track as impractical and mocked the left for adhering to the old formulae for an agreement with the Palestinians. And then came the surprise. When he reached the Palestinian issue, toward the end of the speech, Olmert spoke of its critical importance and of the need for a solution, "whether it's called convergence or whether it's called negotiations of some kind or other - We cannot evade dealing with the Palestinian problem."

Convergence? That same forgotten plan for evacuating dozens of settlements, with which he ran for election, and which he hastened to remove from the agenda after the war in Lebanon? Convergence with Lieberman in the government? It doesn't sound convincing or practical at the moment, but it's interesting to know that the prime minister is still thinking about a significant withdrawal in the West Bank. To a senior minister, who asked how expanding the coalition coincides with the critical need for an agreement, Olmert explained that there was nothing to worry about: When we arrive at the diplomatic process Lieberman will leave, and until then it's a good idea for him to sit with us.

Gavison

Professor Ruth Gavison, a member of the Winograd Committee investigating the war in Lebanon, came to Washington this week to do everything except make headlines. And nevertheless, some of the things she said [in the Hudson institute] arouse interest? For example, that one of the problems of Israeli society is that it is not sufficiently attentive to the voices of the Arab elite, which is calling for its destruction rather than a compromise with it. "They still believe," she said, "that Israel was 'born in sin' and therefore is destined to fall apart."...

Anyone looking for an explanation of the question of why she agreed to join the committee, which has been criticized from its inception for lacking teeth, and as a poor substitute for a biting government commission of inquiry, can perhaps also find it between the lines of her words at the Hudson Institute. "The challenges we face," she said, "do not allow for an unnecessary waste of time on internal battles in Israel." Anyone who wishes to do so can guess that the professor sees the role of the committee as one of stabilizing the government system, rather than serving as a political guillotine.

The short version can be found here, and the longer one, in Hebrew, can be found here.