VOL. XLVI
No 50
The Political Scene (15 December 2003)
Israeli deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has alarmed Israeli right-wingers and Palestinians alike by suggesting that Israel should proceed unilaterally to establish a Palestinian state. The US decision to exclude critics of its adventure in Iraq from contracts to rebuild the country looks set to prolong the divisions within the international community.
Olmert Suggests Alternative To Road Map
As the various Palestinian factions struggled (and failed) to reach an agreement on a cease-fire in the present intifada in talks in Cairo, Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has raised eyebrows – and hackles – by suggesting that Israel’s best course of action might be to abandon the international road map and unilaterally cede territory for the creation of a Palestinian state. Speaking to the daily Yediot Aharonot on 5 December, Mr Olmert, a hawkish member of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s Likud party, based his argument firmly on demographics, saying that if matters continue as they are in the occupied territories, it will lead to Israeli Jews becoming a minority controlling a Palestinian majority and “the loss of Israel as a Jewish state.” (Israel, with a population of 5.2mn Jews, currently has 1.3mn Arab citizens and controls a further 3.5mn Arabs in the occupied territories. Both sets of Arabs have significantly higher birthrates than Israeli Jews.) He added: “I shudder to think that liberal Jewish organizations that shouldered the burden of the struggle against apartheid in South Africa will lead the struggle against us.” Emphasizing that “if I believed there was a real chance of reaching an agreement, I would advise making the effort, but that is not the situation,” he said that Israel should instead draw its own border with the Palestinians and pull out of most of the West Bank and Gaza and parts of Jerusalem. Mr Olmert declined to be more specific about borders, but said that the Israel he envisaged “should comprise a proportion of 80% Jews against 20% of Arabs.”
Mr Olmert admitted that he had not had a “big, serious conversation” with Mr Sharon on the subject, but his remarks, which were seen by some observers as a sign of growing disillusionment with the idea of ‘greater Israel,’ were nonetheless sufficiently inflammatory to create dissension within the ruling right-wing coalition. Internal Security Minister Tshai Hanegbi, a Likudi himself, on 7 December called Mr Olmert’s remarks “more dangerous for the future of the state of Israel than the Oslo and Geneva agreements together,” while the leader of the National Religious Party (NRP), Housing Minister Effi Eitam, said on the same day that the NRP would leave the government if Mr Olmert’s plan “moved from being mere words,” adding that “unilateral withdrawal from Judea and Samaria means fleeing from terror. This reflects enormous weakness and signals to the Palestinians that with a bit more terror, they will get a state, without any agreement or arrangement or commitment on their part.” However, Mr Eitam probably need not worry himself unduly, since Mr Olmert’s suggestion was rejected equally firmly by the Palestinians, who believe, almost certainly correctly, that when people like Mr Olmert and Mr Sharon talk of Palestinian state, they do not mean a state in any of the recognized definitions of the word. According to Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmad Qurai' on 11 December, if the Israelis were to act unilaterally, “the conflict would continue, fires would burn, terror would increase and no-one would gain. It would be a bad mistake to force a settlement on us. We will not accept it. The world will never accept it…If Sharon wants to remove the settlements, fine. But you cannot build a fence on our land, put us into cages like chickens and hope for the best. It will cause a disaster.”
US Excludes Critics From Iraq Contracts
The 5 December decision by US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz to exclude companies from countries that opposed the invasion of Iraq – principally Germany, Russia, France and Canada – from competing for prime contracts funded by the $18.6bn appropriated by the US Congress for the Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund proves two things: that US neoconservatives hold a grudge; and that they realize bribes are going to be necessary to persuade other countries to send troops to Iraq. According to the decision “it is necessary for the protection of the essential security interests of the US to limit competition for the prime contracts of these procurements to companies from the US, Iraq, coalition partners and force contribution nations.” Pentagon spokesman Lawrence DiRita further explained on 10 December that “this is an open list. If countries decided tomorrow that ‘Hey, we want to be on the coalition because what’s going on in Iraq is important,’ then we would welcome that and they would certainly be eligible from that point.” This crude message did not go down at all well with the countries it targeted. German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said on 10 December that “we are astonished by this report and want to speak to the Americans about it,“ while on the same day government spokesman Bela Anda said that if the reports were true, “it would be unacceptable.“ Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov opined that “all those countries that are ready to take part in reconstruction on Iraq should be given the opportunity to do so.” The French, for their part, questioned the legality of the decision, with a government spokesman saying that “we are liaising with our partners, notably the European Union and Commission, to look into whether these decisions are compatible with international competition law.” Even the mild-mannered Canadians were uncharacteristically blunt, with the Foreign Ministry in Ottawa saying on 10 December the list “sends the wrong signal at a time when the international community need to come together to ensure progress in Iraq.” But the harshest criticism came from EU External Relations Commissioner Chris Patten, who issued a statement on 11 December saying that “we deeply regret that decision. We believe that this decision is difficult to accept and unjustified. Furthermore it is a political mistake because it sends a most unhelpful signal…This is not a time to open new wounds but to focus on making concrete progress.”
Charles Snow