I intend to write at some length about the Ze'ev Sternhell matter, with particular attention to its context. But for just now, I cannot refrain from calling our collective attention to the scandalous, even infuriating, rhetorical vacuity of at least two of Israel's leaders.
The first is the Interim Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, who today - Monday, September 29 - gave a remarkable interview to Israel's largest newspaper, Yediot Achronot. Here is The Times report of that interview:
Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank
By ETHAN BRONNER
JERUSALEM -- Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview published on Monday that Israel must withdraw from nearly all the West Bank as well as East Jerusalem to attain peace with the Palestinians and that any occupied land it held onto would have to be exchanged for the same quantity of Israeli territory.
He also dismissed as "megalomania" any thought that Israel would or should attack Iran on its own to stop it from developing nuclear weapons, saying the international community and not Israel alone was charged with handling the issue.
In an unusually frank and soul-searching interview granted after he resigned to fight corruption charges -- he remains interim prime minister until a new government is sworn in -- Mr. Olmert discarded longstanding Israeli defense doctrine and called for radical new thinking in words that are sure to stir controversy as his expected successor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, tries to build a coalition.
"What I am saying to you now has not been said by any Israeli leader before me," Mr. Olmert told Yediot Aharonot newspaper in the interview to mark the Jewish new year that runs from Monday night till Wednesday night. "The time has come to say these things."
He said traditional Israeli defense strategists had learned nothing from past experiences and seemed stuck in the considerations of the 1948 Independence War. "With them, it is all about tanks and land and controlling territories and controlled territories and this hilltop and that hilltop," he said. "All these things are worthless." He added, "Who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel's basic security?"
Over the last year, Mr. Olmert has publicly castigated himself for his earlier right-wing views and he did so again in this interview. On Jerusalem, for example, he said, "I am the first who wanted to enforce Israeli sovereignty on the entire city. I admit it. I am not trying to justify retroactively what I did for 35 years. For a large portion of these years, I was unwilling to look at reality in all its depth."
He said that maintaining sovereignty over an undivided Jerusalem, Israel's official policy, would involve bringing 270,000 Palestinians inside Israel's security barrier. It would mean an ongoing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out earlier this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents with a bulldozer and earth mover.
"A decision has to be made," he said. "This decision is difficult, terrible, a decision that contradicts our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish our natural instincts, our innermost desires, our collective memories, the prayers of the Jewish people for 2,000 years."
The government's public stand on Jerusalem until now has been to assert that the status of the city was not under discussion. But Mr. Olmert made clear that the eastern, predominantly Arab, sector had to be yielded "with special solutions" for the holy sites.
On peace with the Palestinians, Mr. Olmert said in the interview: "We face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians, the meaning of which is that in practice we will withdraw from almost all the territories, if not all the territories. We will leave a percentage of these territories in our hands, but will have to give the Palestinians a similar percentage, because without that there will be no peace."
Elsewhere in the interview, when discussing a land swap with the Palestinians, he said the exchange would have to be "more or less one to one."
Mr. Olmert also addressed the question of Syria, saying that Israel had to be prepared to give up the Golan Heights but that in turn Damascus knew it had to change the nature of its relationship with Iran and its support for Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia.
On Iran, Mr. Olmert said Israel would act within the international system, adding, "Part of our megalomania and our loss of proportions is the things that are said here about Iran. We are a country that has lost a sense of proportion about itself."
Reaction from the Israeli right was swift. Avigdor Lieberman, who heads the Yisrael Beiteinu party, said on the radio that Mr. Olmert was "endangering the existence of the State of Israel irresponsibly." He added that those who thought Israel's problem was a lack of defined borders -- as Mr. Olmert stated in the interview -- "are ignoramuses who don't understand anything and they invite war."
As they reacted to Mr. Olmert's remarks, Palestinian negotiators said it was satisfying to hear Mr. Olmert's words but they said the words did not match what he had offered them so far. Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior Palestinian official, told Palestinian Radio that it would have been better if Mr. Olmert had taken this position while in office rather than while leaving it and that Mr. Olmert had not yet presented a detailed plan for a border between Israel and a Palestinian state.
In theory, Mr. Olmert will continue peace negotiations while awaiting the new government. But most analysts
believe that, having been forced to resign his post, he will not be able to close a deal.
Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company
The Olmert interview was as entirely intelligent a statement as one can imagine. Had Mr. Olmert said the same things even six months ago, let alone much earlier than that, the words might have mattered. But those same words, coming as they now do from the mouth of a thoroughly discredited prime minister, one who well may before long be sitting in an Israeli prison, convicted on one or another of the corruption charges which have driven him from office, are essentially meaningless. They amount to a fuzzy sop to all of us who have held the same views for many years now, but they are without practical effect.
So much for Mr. Olmert. Now let us turn to Defense Minister and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak, whose statement in the wake of the assault on Professor Sternhell was remarkably gracious. Bear in mind that Sternhell is among the most persistent critics of the Occupation. (I will have much more to say about the good professor in a forthcoming piece.) Barak was among a swath of Israeli leaders who vigorously condemned the assault, but he went farther than most, saying, "This is a case where an intellectual came under attack because of his views. We are returning to a dark period. We won't allow anyone, from any dark corner of Israeli society, to harass people," Barak continued. "Not in general, and especially not when it comes to people with a voice as rare and as clear as Ze'ev Sternhell's."
What Ehud Barak seems to have forgotten is that he has been Minister of Defense for well over a year, and in all that time has accomplished next to nothing with regard either to the removal of illegal settlements or to the quelling of West Bank settler violence against Palestinians. That violence has been increasing of late, and there can be little doubt that one reason for the increase is the remarkably tepid response of the IDF and the police to its expression. Report after report tells of incidents of such violence in which the army personnel stood to the side without intervening.
So, like Olmert's, Barak's actions - more accurately, his inactions - give the lie to his grace.
And all this on the eve of a new year.
May it be a better year than the one to which, without nostalgia or regret, we now bid farewell.