Tuesday, January 1, 2008

Working The Room

It isn’t every day that you get to practice nonchalance at this level. Last night, at the yearly New Year’s party of the indomitable Lea Van Leer (the moving force behind the Jerusalem Cinematheque), I was in conversation with a law professor friend about the careless meanings of the phrase “Jewish self-determination,” when Ehud Olmert, our current determiner-in-chief, unexpectedly broke into our circle. I should add that he and his remarkable wife Aliza could not help joining us. We were standing right in front of Lea's entrance, and the Olmerts (and their body guards) had just arrived—mind you, just as I was getting to the climax of my argument, which I pretended to reach as if the prime minister of Israel, for God’s sake, had not just interrupted my train of thought.

Actually, I have known Olmert off and on for over thirty years (come to think of it, I’ll just call him Ehud). I was a young scholar in Jerusalem, moonlighting as a journalist for the New York Review, and he was a new backbencher for the opposition (and newly formed) Likud. Ehud was no ideological gymnast. He was a thoroughly professional politician, the first I got to know, a parliamentary second to the jurist Shmuel Tamir, a centrist and independent civil rights advocate, who eventually became Menachem Begin’s first justice minister. Olmert was about my age, moreover, and I liked him almost immediately. I was angling to be a tough reporter, he was angling to be a charming source. He seemed eager to be noticed by American readers, but his warmth could not be explained by maneuver alone.

I NEVER MET Bill Clinton, but those who have been close to him speak about his love of people, or more precisely, the pleasure he took in being loved by people, which made him accessible, talkative, reciprocal, wonkish—willing to debate every point with you as if your opinion mattered, willing to gossip with you (or make you feel let in on some intimacy) as if you mattered. This, at any rate, is how I experienced Ehud from the start. I spoke to him every couple of years through the late 70s and early 80s. He would come for a meeting after a long day, and we would talk for a hour or two about what the Likud government might or might not do. He always seemed at a kind of ironic distance from the party, stressing its need for pragmatism; he’d speak with a kind of perverse pride about how his wife and children supported Peace Now. I once met him at an airport in the early 90s, and he confided (or pretended to) that he was mulling over a run for mayor of Jerusalem, to finally become a kind of independent. I told him I thought this would be a great job and wished him well.

None of this suggests a man who had not figured out how Israel’s political bread got buttered back then. Once he got to be mayor, he made common cause with the ultraOrthodox parties, which eventually took over the city. More and more, Ehud settled into the life of a rising star of Greater Israel, hitching eventually to Ariel Sharon. In 1988, after the first Intifada had started up, I brought Philip Roth to have lunch with him at the Knesset cafeteria, impulsively hoping that, when confronted by Roth's carefully wrought Americaness, he might avoid talking about American Jews as if they were merely material for Likud's Zioncraft. Roth asked how, in view of the violence, Israel could dream of holding the West Bank forever. Olmert replied that the West Bank could be held, but only if American Jews like Roth would finally come en masse to settle it. The violence, by inference, was the fault of Diaspora Jews who failed to seize the moment. The lunch did not last long.

Ehud (and Aliza) had let me interview them for my forthcoming book last winter. So when they came in last night, and started greeting us all, I did not feel abashed for too long. Pretty soon we were chatting amiably enough, picking up some of the themes from that interview, talking about his hopes for Annapolis, surrounded soon by other guests, many of whom knew him in a different way. I did not have to be told that everything was off the record: I’ll reveal that when I asked him what he liked least about being prime minister, he told me that it was the all-sided threats to his private life—which is why revealing anything more here would be particularly bad form, even if had said something earthshaking in our presence, which he did not.

BUT I HAVE to admit that, as we all stood there as midnight approached, feeling his pleasure in company, listening to his gossip about ministers and negotiation partners—hearing his ebullient mix of name-dropping, fading dogma and labyrinthine positioning—I wanted him very much to remain prime minister just now, a man without firm beliefs or heroic red lines, a fixer with a big problem to fix, a politician who intuitively seems to know that, to endure, Israel will have to work the world the way he was working the room.

For Ehud knows—this much he has said publicly—that he and the professional elites he personifies are running out of time to bring an agreement with the Palestinians; that the absence of an agreement will turn Israel into an international pariah just when it is utterly dependent on global integration. He knows that his chance to bring peace, this fateful year, is also his one chance to survive politically—to hold his coalition together, negotiate a package with the Palestinians discretely, and present it, in a big bang, to the Israeli public. He knows that, if America gets behind any deal, the Israeli public would not dare reject it. He knows that international forces will have to be involved in any solution. He knows that he needs to do things differently from his predecessors, who either postponed the inevitable on the West Bank, or lost their Knesset majorities by the time they were ready to act.

Will he get his chance? It is hard to say. Right after George Bush’s visit here next week, the final report of the Winograd Commission into the failures of the 2006 Lebanon War will be released. It is hard to think of anyone in Olmert’s coalition who has not at one time or another promised to resign if Olmert does not accept responsibility and do so himself. Polls show the old Likud under Bibi Netanyahu in a commanding lead right now. Then again, moderate coalition partners, including Barak’s Labor, cannot want a new election right now. So Ehud Olmert may well survive to fix his biggest problem yet. Anyway, when we finished singing “Auld Lang Syne” in that peculiar (now universal) lyric that seems to English what a Aramaic is to Hebrew, I was not the only one wishing Ehud blessings. We are not getting any younger. And this had better be a good year for him.

5 comments:

bar_kochba132 said...

Bernie, I have learned one thing about politicians...and that is, when they say something to you, it is not to be a "pal" or to convey information, it is rather, to get you to support him and to get you to do something for him. Olmert's goal in "buddy-buddying" you was to go write a blog and tell all your professor friends what a "great man" he is and how he sees the "big picture" and he is going to "make peace", as if all these things were within his power alone. I don't know Olmert personally, I only see and feel the consequences of his actions and it is these things that have made him the most unpopular prime minister in history.
So you really think he is going to lock himself in a room with Abbas and come out with an agreement? Abbas is going to give up the so-called Palestinian "right of return" as a favor for his buddy Ehud? And if Abbas refuses to give it up Ehud is accept it, and in addition is going to hand over the Temple Mount AND Western Wall (yes, the Palestinians are demanding the Western Wall too) and Israelis will simply roll over and accept it, even if Uncle Sam demands it?

Ehud is a cynical man. Ehud never believed in "Greater Israel" or the ideology of the Likud. He is one of the "princes" of the so-called "National Camp" and as an ambitious man, realizing that if he wanted a political career he would never be accepted in the Labor Party, so he had to declaim the ideology of the Likud which would accept him with open arms. Finally, once Oslo came along and the big money started flowing into the pockets of "right-wing" politicians, they could openly jettison their old slogans and find their way comfortably into the arms of the Lefist Establishment, as almost all these old "princes" of the Right have done (which is why the majority of the Likud supported destroying Gush Katif in violation of all their promises).
Bernie, just as Olmert betrayed those of the "national camp", he can just as easily betray your side. You are warned!

bar_kochba132 said...

Bernie---if you think about it, Ehud has given you all the reasons why there is NO chance of him ever being able to reach an agreement with Abbas for creation of a Palestinian state. Ehud keeps telling us that "Israel is finished if we don't give them a state" supposedly because of the demands of "globalization", and beauseof Ehud's (incorrect) belief that Israel will become a "pariah state" if we don't do what the world wants. Well, what is it that the Arabs want?..exactly that...to get rid of Israel. You members of the Leftist Establishment, have convinced yourself that the problem is Judea/Samara and the Jews who live there..."ifonly we give them up, the Arabs will make peace".However deep down, you know that is not true, because there were riots and wars BEFORE Israel came into control of these territories in 1967. The Arabs are not now confronting Israel because the Palestinians don't have the vote for a national parliament, they are struggling against Israel because they view the very existence of any Jewish state within any borders as an intolerable threat and humiliation.
Alon Liel, who I assume is a friend of yours, who held senior positions in the Foreign Ministry and is a good friend of Yossi Beilin, was interviewed a few days ago on the Reshet Bet radio show "Hakol Diburim" and he stated flat out that the Egyptians OPPOSE any Palestinian/Israeli peace agreement because that would lead to strengthening Israel's position in the Middle East. This is why they support HAMAS in the Gaza Strip. Egypt is also restoring normal relations with Iran which were broken off 30 years ago.
However, look at the situation from Palestinian Authority leader Abbas' point of view. Having HAMAS take over Gaza was the best thing that ever happened to him. While he had the gov't that included HAMAS controlling the Prime Minster's office, the world had cut back aid to the Palestinians. Now with HAMAS in Gaza, Abbas can wave that threat to the Western World and demand lots of cash as a "reward" for being "moderate". So he gets$7 Billion dollars in his pocket to hand out to his cronies. What reason does he have to fight HAMAS when they are worth so much to him in the opposition? Moreso, what reason does he have to reach an agreement with Israel which would involve compromises that would be viewed as treasonous by his fellow countryment? I am sure he remembers what happened to Sadat who signed a treaty with Israel. All he has to do is point to what your pal, Ehud, says and say "see, even their own leaders say they are doomed if we just sit and wait!"

In fact, I do not agree with Omert's prophecies of gloom and doom, but that is material for a different posting. The world knows full well who is responsible for the lack of a settlement, and that is the Arabs. Israel has made much progress in the last 60 years in the absence of "peace treaties" with the Arab world, and will continue to into the future. Time is working in Israel's favor, we are pulling further and further ahead of the Arab world.

ibrahim said...

Sesli sohbet Sesli chat
Seslisohbet Seslichat
Sesli sohbet siteleri Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli Chat
Sohbet Sesli siteler
Sohbet siteleri Chat siteleri
Sohbet merkezi chat merkezi
Sesli merkezi sesli Sohbet merkezi
Sesli chat merkezi Sohbetmerkezi
Sesli Sohbet Sesli Chat
SesliSohbet Sesli chat siteleri
Sesli sohbet siteleri SesliChat
Sesli Sesli siteler
Seslimuhabbet sesli muhabbet
sesli sohbet sesli chat siteleri
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslisohbet seslichat
seslikent sesli kent
sesli sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli chat sesli chat siteleri
seslisohbet seslichat

slw1111 said...

The unique Ladies Omega Watches collection comprised 35 timepieces celebrating the company's role as Official Timekeeper of the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games. The 'Beijing 2008, Unique No. 8 Collection "was presented at the auction as an important part of the sale of Sotheby's Watches autumn 2008.

ekle paylas said...

nice blog Thanks for sharing. voicesohbet was really very nice.
sesli chat siteleri sesli sohbet
sesli sohbet siteleri sesli chat
seslichat seslisohbet
sesli siteleri chat siteleri
sohbet siteleri sesli siteler
voice sohbet sesli sohbet siteleri
sesli sohbet seslisohbet
sohbet siteleri sesli chat siteleri
seslichat sesli chat
herkesburda herkes burda
sohbetmerkezi sohbetmerkezi