In colloquial Israeli Hebrew, when someone discovers something that everybody else already knows, we say: "Good morning, Elijahu!"
Why Elijahu? I don't know. Now one could say: "Good morning, Ehud!"
That's what I said to myself when I read the sensational interview that Ehud Olmert gave last week, on the eve of the Jewish New Year, to the newspaper Yediot Aharonot.
At the end of his political career, after resigning from the prime ministership, while waiting for Tzipi Livni to set up a new government, he said some astounding things - not astounding in themselves, but certainly when they come from his mouth.
For those who missed it, here are the excerpts of what he said:
"We must reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the essence of which is that we shall actually withdraw from almost all the territories, if not from all the territories. We shall keep in our hands a percentage of these territories, but we shall be compelled to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace."
"... including [occupied] Jerusalem. With special solutions, that I can visualise, for the Temple Mount [Haram Al Sharif] and the historical holy places ... Anyone who wants to keep all the territory of the city will have to put 270,000 Arabs behind fences within sovereign Israel. That won't work.
"... Concerning Syria, what we need first of all is a decision. I wonder if there is one single serious person in Israel who believes it is possible to make peace with Syria without giving up the Golan Heights in the end.
"... The aim is to try and fix for the first time a precise border between us and the Palestinians, a border that all the world [will recognise].
"... We can perhaps take a historic step in our relations with the Palestinians, and a historic step in our relations with the Syrians. In both cases the decision we must make is the decision we have refused to face with open eyes for 40 years.
"... Iran is a very great power ... The assumption that America and Russia and China and Britain and Germany do not know how to handle the Iranians, and we Israelis know and we shall do so, is an example of the loss of all sense of proportion."
My first reaction, as I said, was: Good morning, Ehud.
I am reminded of my late friend, the poet who went by the name of Yebi. Some 32 years ago, after dozens of Arab-Israeli citizens were killed while demonstrating against the expropriation of their lands, he came to me in utter turmoil and exclaimed: we must do something. So we decided to lay wreaths on the graves of the killed. There were three of us: Yebi, I and the painter Dan Kedar, who died recently. The gesture aroused a storm of hatred against us. Since then, whenever someone in Israel said something in favour of peace, Yebi would burst out: "Where was he when we laid the wreaths?"
Olmert, who fought all his life against our views, is apparently adopting them now. That is the main thing. Not "Good morning, Ehud" but "Welcome, Ehud".
True, we said this 40 years ago. But we were not an incumbent prime minister. It should not be forgotten: In the period in which these ideas were crystallising in Olmert's mind, he was allowing the colonies to expand, especially in occupied Jerusalem.
That gives rise to an unavoidable question: Does he really mean what he says? Isn't this some sort of manipulation, as usual?
This time I tend to believe him. One can say: the words sound truthful. The whole thing sounds like the political testament of a person who is resigned to the end of his political career.
One can ask: Why do such people reach their conclusions only on finishing their term of office, when they can no longer do much about the wise things they are proposing?
The superficial answer lies in the character of political life. Olmert's term was full of crises. Only now has he got the time, and perhaps the philosophical composure, to draw conclusions.
Importance
That is the importance of this interview. He has delivered a kind of State of the Nation report to the public, a summary of the reality of Israel after 60 years of the state and 120 years of the Zionist enterprise.
One can point out the huge gaps in this summary. There is no criticism of Zionist policy over five generations. There is no mention of the Palestinian refugee problem. There is no admission of guilt for the disastrous enlargement of the colonies. And the list is long.
The primitive basis of his world view has not changed. However, this time, his adherence to the principle of "Two States for Two Peoples" appears much more genuine. His demand for "fixing the final borders of the State of Israel" represents a revolution in Zionist thought.
He demands that a decision be taken now. This is the testament of the prime minister, and it is obviously intended for the next prime minister. We don't know whether Livni is ready to implement such a plan. I wish her one thing above all: That at the end of her days as prime minister she will not have to sit down and give an interview, in which she, too, will apologise for missing the historic opportunity for making peace.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with Gush Shalom.
Send us your comments
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
Gulf News may edit comments for length and clarity but will not change the tone of the message. Comments will only be accepted if all fields (including name) are filled correctly and the message isn't abusive, defamatory or offensive. The Gulf News website will only print your first name along with your comment. Please state in the message if you wish to remain anonymous. All comments sent may be forwarded for use in the Gulf News newspaper.
