How Olmert is hiding behind Bush's back

My weekend-column partner, Aluf Benn, is back. You can read our material in full here, or the shortened version here:

Olmert and Bush


After less than a year in office, accompanied by unflattering polls and a general feeling of crisis in the country, it's a little strange to talk about the "Olmert legacy." But even under these difficult circumstances, a clear and consistent direction can be seen in Olmert's policy. It has so far been primarily characterized by its striving toward agreement and coordination with the international community, especially the American administration, but also key European Union countries and Egypt and Jordan. Olmert is prepared to pay the price of domestic support as long as he is accepted by the White House, 10 Downing St. and the presidential palace in Cairo.

It's hard to keep up with the pace of Olmert's meetings with world leaders - which recalls the seemingly never- ending trips of Ehud Barak, another prime minister who was not one of the Israeli public's favorite leaders. Last week Olmert visited Berlin and Rome. This week, even though he was pale and congested, he hopped over to Jordan for two hours and hosted his British and Norwegian colleagues in Jerusalem. Olmert will be flying to Beijing in 10 days, and his meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas could take place next week.

This week, an American official politely suggested that Olmert not hide behind the back of the United States, after the prime minister defended his refusal to accept Syrian peace bids by saying, "We must not respond to the Syrian initiative while President Bush, Israel's most important ally, opposes all negotiations with Syria." Some Israeli officials said Olmert was portraying Bush as someone who refuses to accept peace.

Washington wasn't thrilled either, but although the Bush administration would rather not serve as Israel's fig leaf in the matter, it continues to maintain that there should be no talks with Syria.

Not coincidentally, Olmert backtracked and changed his line of argument. It's not Bush who's responsible for Olmert's refusal to conduct negotiations with Syrian President Bashar Assad, it's the fault of the four crimes of Damascus: its undermining of the Siniora government in Lebanon, the assistance it has rendered terrorism in Iraq, the protection it has given Hamas, and its alliance with Iran. At least two of these, however - saving Siniora and worrying about terror attacks in Iraq - are hardly Israel's top priority.

Twenty-five years ago, Olmert's mentor, Menachem Begin, told American ambassador Sam Lewis that Israel was no banana republic. The Arabs (Assad Sr.) were almost the same Arabs and the lake (the Kinneret) was the same lake - but what a change for the Israelis and the Americans: Then the United States opposed the law to annex the Golan Heights, which was passed quickly in the Knesset, and today it opposes returning the Golan. Then Begin got angry and defied America, and today Olmert is applauding and submitting to the American edict. All prime ministers - even those who clashed with the Americans, like Yitzhak Shamir and Benjamin Netanyahu - recognized Israel's utter dependence on the United States, and ultimately did what the White House wanted. But Olmert, with the support of Shimon Peres, has transformed reliance on Bush into an ideology.

Hamas and Hezbollah

To Olmert's credit, it should be said that he has racked up success: "The world" is backing up his policy regarding Syria and the Palestinians, and has agreed to save the Israel Defense Forces from an extended stay in Lebanon. In the Syrian case, no one will tell Olmert he is mistaken, aside from a few Israelis and some of the country's veteran analysts. So what if Bush and Rice oppose negotiations with the hated Assad - they can always say that their behavior stems from some kind of messianic ideology. So what if French President Jacques Chirac, the hero of Lebanese independence, also opposes talks; he hates the Syrians.

But this week Blair also took Olmert's side, explaining that Syria is not a suitable partner because of its efforts to undermine Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora. Even the prime minister of Norway, which fervently opposes Israeli occupation of the territories, loudly justified the international isolation of the Hamas-led government, demanded that Hezbollah disarm and vehemently condemned Iran for destabilizing the region.

Olmert's Sde Boker speech - in which he proposed withdrawing from most of the West Bank, said he would stick to the repeatedly violated cease-fire in Gaza, promised to meet with Abbas, and even hinted at the release of jailed Fatah leader Marwan Barghouti (he said "the issue is not on the agenda," and not, "Barghouti is a terrorist who will rot in jail for the rest of his life") - is enough to keep Israel from being accused of responsibility for the political stalemate.

In any case, Israel's enemies are not so impressed by these speeches and declarations, and are continuing to supply effective weapons to counteract any political plans. Hamas stuck to its position, and refuses to recognize Israel despite the pressure and the isolation. Hezbollah remains armed and is threatening to destroy Lebanon. Syria is arming itself and pulling Hamas' strings. Iran is continuing with its nuclear project. Israel has not managed to influence any of them or to restrain them. But the battle Olmert is waging aims to win international support, not to subdue the enemy. And on the international front, Olmert has chalked up a fair amount of success.