Yesterday a grandmother was killed on one of the kibbutzim near Gaza by a Palestinian missile. Saturday a member of another kibbutz died in the same way. Saturday's victim was a professional photographer. We saw a film of him expressing his willingness to live alongside Israel's borders.
When is enough enough?
Israel's government seems to be dithering with Hamas and other armed groups, via Egyptian intermediaries, about a cease-fire. Israel would like to link the cease fire with the release of Gilad Shalit, held prisoner in Gaza by one of the groups, for almost two years. Palestinian groups are saying that they may re-open talks about his release if Israel agrees to a cease-fire. Israel also wants an end to the flow of armaments to Gaza through Egypt. There seems little chance that another agreement on this issue will be more successful than previous agreements on the same issue.
Israel's government is risking its self-respect. It has the capacity to make the people of Gaza pay a heavy price for the continued shelling of settlements in Israel, but it refuses to use that capacity.
One member of a kibbutz subject to bombardment, when interviewed on radio, called for an artillery barrage on Gaza in response to every missile sent toward Israel. It would not be necessary to risk Israeli soldiers.
The kibbutz member termed himself a leftist. That usually means, "peace loving."
Would this kibbutz leftist remain on message when Gazans start dying in the hundreds or thousands? Israeli artillery is more deadly than the rockets of Gaza.
Another member of a kibbutz near Gaza ridiculed the proposal of adding shelters to homes and public buildings. That would legitimize the continuation of rocket attacks.
Why not a more forceful response?
It would risk the peace process. The people in nominal charge of the West Bank could not continue peace discussions if Palestinians were dying in Gaza. The White House could not accept this. President Bush continues to say that Mahmoud Abbas is a credible partner for peace.
Europeans would respond badly. They might impose economic sanctions on Israel. Jimmy Carter would say again that Israel is committing war crimes in Gaza worse than the apartheid it is practicing in the West Bank. Not a few American Jews would join some Israelis by expressing their shame about a country that uses weapons rather than agreements in order to attain peace.
Can we count on Israel's prime minister to act heroically? The police investigation may be weighing on him, and it can take a while to reach any conclusion. "A while" in the Israeli context means several months at the least.
Olmert was photographed yesterday nodding off to sleep while attending a meeting. He woke up to say that the subject of the meeting was close to his heart.
I have yet to hear an Israeli commentator indicate that Abbas is strong enough, or willing enough, to reach an agreement that Israel is likely to offer, and to impose an end to violence on his population.
A snippet from Atlantic does not encourage us to rely on Barak Obama. http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php
Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?
No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically.
Clinton's candidacy is not promising. Moreover, her comment about destroying Iran is not something anyone can rely upon.
Can we hope that McCain does not have a senior moment in front of the cameras before November?
It is time to calculate Israel's responsibility to defend its population, against the possibilities of embarrassing whoever is the American president, opposition from European governments, and criticism from Jews and others concerned with Palestinians.
A look at the Palestinian peace process suggests a non-starter. Recent hints of peace with Syria are now overwhelmed by Syrian and Iranian aid to Hizbollah fighters who are threatening to take over Lebanon. Iran's president continues to talk about Israel as a temporary problem that must be removed from the Middle East.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Home tel: 972-2-532-2725
Cell phone: 054-683-5325
Fax: 972-2-582-9144
We have been roiled for more than a week in diminishing silence. There has been an intense investigation of the prime minister and those close to him, but the police and the court imposed a news blackout on all details. Some bits came out in foreign media available via the internet, but the police insisted on their posture until the end of Independence Day 60th anniversary celebrations.
Now we are told that an American fundraiser passed large sums, some of it in cash, to Ehud Olmert over the course of several years. The prime minister went public as soon as he could (the blackout also applied to him), and explained that the money was for campaigning expenses, and that he relied on his attorney to assure that it was all legal.
Olmert is in trouble. He has been there before, and he may emerge from this, too, with nothing more than additional scars.
He may be right in insisting that he never took a bribe, and that he never used any gifts for personal expenses, but that may be irrelevant. Israeli laws about campaign financing are much simpler and less permissive than the American equivalents. Here there are not the varieties of quasi-independent committees that raise money and spend it in favor of a candidate. Israeli politicians do not have the personal wealth of some American candidates. And the courts have not established "freedom of expression" as an umbrella for political advertizing. Moreover, it is illegal for a public figure to receive large sums of money. It is not necessary to prove a quid pro quo in terms of favors given or promised.
News is that Olmert's lawyer, who he is relying on to have managed the transfers properly, is now willing to testify against the prime minister.
The American fund raiser is a story in himself. We now know that he is Moshe Talansky, 75 years old, known as the "laundryman" by people close to Olmert. He is said to have transferred funds to Olmert beginning when he was running for mayor of Jerusalem in the 1990s. Talansky also spent years raising money for Shaare Zedek hospital and other causes. A person associated with the hospital was quoted on Israel radio as describing Talansky as a nocal, which is equivalent to a host of uncomplimentary English terms: crook, scoundrel, shyster, villain, rogue, fraud, equivocator, faker, flimflammer, fraudulent, gouger, grifter, impostor, jackal, knave, miscreant, quack.
Toward the end of the news blackout, Ha'aretz slipped around the restrictions by locating Talansky's ex-wife. She lives in Jerusalem, could not be named due to what was forbidden, but expressed herself like many other women left behind for what her husband thought was someone more suitable. She was outspoken in her glee that Talansky and his friend Olmert had fallen afoul of the police. She had met Olmert, but never liked him. She viewed him as a politician who knew how to sound attractive, but was never really pleasant. She hopes that the investigation will end with his indictment.
Olmert's political opponents are dancing on what they hope will be his political grave. Left wing moralists are taking the high ground, and emphasizing that a politician who has been the subject of so many police inquiries cannot possibly lead the country. Right wing politicians are saying that he cannot remain in a position where he might make concessions to the Palestinians and Syrians.
Olmert's crisis may have broken at this time in response to reports that he may be close to some kind of agreement, perhaps partial, with the Palestinians; and has said that he would give up the Golan Heights in exchange for peace with Syria. Talansky himself has been identified with religious Jews who opposed the withdrawal of settlements from Gaza, and oppose any further territorial concessions.
George W. Bush and some other leaders of important countries are due here to help Israel celebrate its 60th anniversary. Bush is also likely to nudge, or push, whoever is the prime minister to improve the Palestinians' chances to create their state.
At this point it is not possible to conclude anything more than we are likely to hear more about all of this before Bush comes. If he comes. This might be a time for the president to reconsider his crowded schedule, and think of some way to end his presidency other than with a Palestinian state.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Home tel: 972-2-532-2725
Cell phone: 054-683-5325
Fax: 972-2-582-9144
What's on our agenda this week?
Israel's 60th anniversary.
Intelligence officials are saying that various Palestinian groups are planning a major incidence of violence to spoil the celebration.
George W. Bush is scheduled to come. We'll have to stay off the roads.
Condoleezza Rice is already here, demanding that we be nicer to the Palestinians.
Palestinians are seeking international help for their insistence that Israel recognize the pre-1967 borders as the starting point of any decisions about borders between the two countries. They are also saying that Israel does not allow the Palestinians to acquire enough weapons in order to show that they can govern themselves; and that Israel is wrong in coming into their cities in order to seize people it suspects of wrongdoing.
Hamas and Israel are dealing through Egypt with respect to a cease fire in Gaza. There remain considerable differences between the positions. It is not clear if the Hamas offer is a "take it or leave it" opportunity, or what will be the demands of Israel and the flexibility of Israel or Hamas.
We saw an American television item on the Israeli Air Force, inserted into a weekly Israeli program of news from the world. This item raised once again the issue of Iranian nuclear program, it's threat against Israel, and what all those pilots are training for.
The police are investigating Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, apparently for violating criminal statutes. There is a block on information, but "reputable sources" are telling journalists that it involves large sums and bribery from the period before he was prime minister. Speculation is that this investigation, something like the fifth in recent years, will be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Opponents are calling for Olmert's indictment, his resignation, and an election.
Not a typical week, but not all that unusual in the combined tensions.
An American asks me to be sympathetic about a horse killed before a national television audience at the Kentucky Derby.
Olmert's been in trouble before. Indeed, he has not been out of trouble for some years now. He is well known for playing very close the edge of the rules, but managing to pass through one police inquiry after another with little more than nasty comments from political opponents. This investigation may be more serious. On the other hand, some of the demands for his resignation come right-of-center parties opposed to the whole process of conversing with the Palestinians. Left-of-center moralists support the peace process, but are beating up on the prime minister in the hope of getting more seats out of an election.
The Palestinians will continue to bleat, and demand that others solve their problems. The continued rain of missiles on Sderot and other border towns does not stand them in good stead with the world, despite the difference in who is ruling Gaza and who is talking peace with the Israelis. The peace talkers themselves are not all that attractive to the world, insofar as they show time and again their inability or unwillingness to work against those planning violence against Israel, or keeping them in jail once they have put some of them there. It often appears that short term stays in Palestinian jails (before there is an "escape" or a release for "lack of evidence") are designed more to protect the violent from the Israelis than to protect the Israelis from the violence.
The President and his Secretary of State will add some of their diminishing weight to the peace process. Insofar as the President is coming to celebrate Israel's 60 years of Independence, however, prominent Palestinians say they will not meet with him. For them, it should be a celebration of their national disaster.
I suspect that we will get through this week.
It's too early to say what the following week will offer.
For those more concerned about the horse, I participate in your sorrow.
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Home tel: 972-2-532-2725
Cell phone: 054-683-5325
Fax: 972-2-582-9144