JERUSALEM - It is one of those wonderful ironies that makes politics so
interesting, and so ridiculous; Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has put his
immediate political future into the hands of Israel's sworn enemy, Hamas.
The negotiated ceasefire with the government in Gaza - also Palestine's
democratically elected leaders and a "terror organization" - is a desperate
gamble, a last throw of the dice for the increasingly embattled Olmert, whose
survival as premier now seems dependant on how Hamas responds.
The root of the problem is money - specifically, whether Olmert helped himself
to a bit too much of it when he was mayor of Jerusalem. The corruption
investigations have yet to reach a
conclusion, but already the fragile ruling coalition is starting to crack under
the strain.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak, leader of the coalition's second-largest party,
Labor, has threatened to bring down the government if Olmert doesn't resign,
and opposition leader Benjamin Netanyahu is waiting impatiently in the wings to
return to the top job.
Desperate, Olmert knows he needs something important to distract his
detractors, to take the spotlight off his financial indiscretions. And so, like
the bully who beats up the strange kid to cover up his own insecurities, Olmert
turned on Palestine. But, perhaps sensing that the international community
would not be too receptive to a full-scale invasion (and nervous to avoid a
repeat of the bloody nose dished out by Hezbollah in Lebanon two years ago),
Olmert eschewed the distracting pyrotechnics of tanks and missiles and pretty
explosions. At least for now.
Rather than fireworks, Olmert chose sleight of hand, making Hamas an offer it
was simply too tired and too hungry to refuse: stop the fighting, and Israel
will open the supply lines, he told the Gazans via Egyptian mediators.
In itself, this was a pivotal moment in Israel-Hamas relations - by talking and
agreeing with each other, even indirectly, both sides have conferred on the
other the kind of legitimacy that betrays everything they stand for, but which
finally recognizes the reality of the political situation. It is also a lesson
that the US presidential candidates might take to heart, both of whom -
Democratic Senator Barack Obama and Republican Senator John McCain - have
talked with varying levels of conviction of not engaging in dialogue with
"terrorist organizations" and the like. Refusing to talk to them will not make
them go away, however, and sometimes words can achieve more than guns and
faulty intelligence.
All the same, the ceasefire is not expected to last. Certainly that is the mood
among people from all walks of life in Israel's capital Jerusalem, and it is
clearly the expectation of Olmert himself. "I have no illusions," he said in a
recent speech. "What is called 'calm' is fragile and short-lived. Hamas has not
changed its skin. These are blood-thirsty and despicable terrorists who even
today are doing everything they can to harm Israeli civilians. Hamas ... will
be responsible for any violation of the 'quiet'."
This last condition effectively sets Hamas up for a fall, for, contrary to
perceptions, Hamas is itself not in full control of the Gaza Strip, which is
home to numerous other militant groups which do not answer blindly to Hamas'
commands. Olmert is effectively making Hamas responsible for the actions of
people over whom they have little control; and by enforcing such a restrictive
condition will greatly increase the chances of a violation of the ceasefire.
The depth of Hamas' lack of control was illustrated by the death on Tuesday of
Army of Islam leader Muataz Durmush, killed in a targeted Israeli strike.
According to The Jerusalem Post, Durmush had survived assassination attempts by
both Fatah and Hamas over the past two years, and was considered by both
parties to be "a thug and a murderer". In a rare alignment of interests, the
Palestinians were just as happy as the Israelis to see him go.
Palestine is not a unified state, and Gaza not a unified territory; the chances
are good that, however genuine the intentions of Hamas are, some other group
will be responsible for violating the ceasefire. And should this happen in a
dramatic enough fashion - should an Israeli be killed - then Olmert will find
himself with plenty of justification in the eyes of those that matter (Israelis
and the US government) to launch a full-scale assault on the Gaza Strip.
It would be a very brave Barak or Netanyahu then to dare topple the wartime
leader of a country that would be riding the wave of nationalist fervor, and
would at the very least grant Olmert something of a stay of execution; at best,
with public support now behind him, the whole corruption investigation would
fade quietly into the background.
However, should the ceasefire be broken in a minor fashion that would not
provide legitimate cause for a full-scale offensive, Olmert would find himself
back to square one with regards both to Gaza and his domestic situation. A
return to the messy tit-for-tat of cross-border exchanges would do nothing for
his popularity, and certainly would not deter his detractors. Instead, his
critics would turn the guns on him, and it is unlikely his government would
withstand the pressure. Step forward Netanyahu.
There is one other option, although it is a solution that is inconceivable to
most Israelis (Arab or Jew); that the ceasefire is observed, and a semblance of
peace and normality returns to Gaza and Israel's border areas. This will
reflect well on Olmert, especially in the international community, although he
will be fighting off the Egyptian mediators from taking all the credit.
But how peace will play out domestically is another matter. It should shore up
popular support for Olmert, but is unlikely to stave off the corruption
allegations, and could create more problems than it solves for the Israeli
premier, particularly with the crucial conservative right-wing element of
Israeli politics, which will see the legitimization of Hamas as a threat to the
Israeli state.
A sustained peace is likely to see the government collapse, but this might not
be a complete disaster for Olmert - his new, unaccustomed role as peacemaker
will play out well in the polls, in the way that his current image as a venal,
corrupt politician won't.
Simon Allison is a student of international affairs, with emphasis on the
Middle East, currently based in Cairo, Egypt.
(Copyright 2008 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
