Every once in a while there is a speech worthy of comment. Yesterday Ehud Olmert gave one of those.
Condoleezza Rice and Tony Blair were the important people in the ballroom of the King David Hotel. Along with them were two hundred or so of the rich or well known.
Portions of the speech worth ridiculing were Olmert's claim that he was operating in the spirits of Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon. It was the 12th anniversary of Rabin's assassination, with the atmosphere heated further by being the day of the brit mila (circumcision) of the assassin's son. Sharon is the man who paved the way for Olmert to become prime minister.
Both Rabin and Sharon were all over the map politically. Part of their charm was their unpredictability. It is possible to cite each of them in behalf of virtually anything. Rabin cannot rise from the dead to contradict those who claim him in support of their latest idea, and it is unlikely that Sharon will wake from his 22 month long coma, give a quick reading of the newspapers, and announce his posture on what Olmert is saying.
The American equivalent would be George W. Bush claiming to be operating in the spirits of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, and Ronald Reagan. He would not quote his father in order to avoid the possibility of a family embarrassment.
Mahmoud Abbas would claim the blessings of Salah al-Din and Yassir Arafat, Allah, and Mohamed, with Jesus Christ thrown in for the benefit of the half dozen or so Christians who survive in Palestine, plus the many more Christian clerics who applaud whatever the Palestinians do.
There were two points in Olmert's speech that warrant serious consideration.
One is his optimistic approach to conversations with Palestinian leaders and the Annapolis conference. He said that he respects his negotiating partners, and expects to reach an agreement that will be appropriate for both Palestinians and Israelis. Initially there will be a formulation of principles, and then negotiations about details that could be completed within a year.
The second point worth noting was the often-repeated Israeli mantra that Olmert will achieve a solution of two states for two people: Palestine for the Palestinians and Israel for the Israelis.
There are important code words in this simple message. They becomes apparent when compared to the Palestinian mantra: a two state solution.
The code in their formulation is that Palestine will be for the Palestinians, and Israel will be for the Israelis and the Palestinians. The Palestinians in Israel will be the refugees of 1948 and their descendants (and maybe those who left in 1967 and later) who will return to their homes.
These differences are a large part of what lies behind the warnings which we hear are expressed by Israelis and Americans to each other: that there remain chasms wide and deep, and perhaps unbridgeable between the Israeli and Palestinian positions.
It was interesting, and perhaps instructive to hear Olmert's optimism. It is too early to chill the champaign.