Anti-Olmert Campaign. Why Now?

The rapid developments inside Israel and the semi-certainty with which Prime Minister Ehud Olmert may be forced out of office raise a few questions that not every one can answer.

The charges brought against Mr. Olmert refer to the early 90s, long before he ran for the mayoral post in Jerusalem against the late mayor of the city, Teddy Kollek. At the time, Olmert was a rising star in the Likud Party. It seems that those in power at the time were happy to see a Jewish millionaire giving the kind of assistance Mr. Talansky allegedly gave to Olmert to beat Labour Party's Mayor Kollek. Envelopes may or may not have been filled up with cash and handed out to Olmert. They may or may not have been filled with cash and handed over also to others within the top echelon of the Likud Party. What matters at the moment is the question: why now?

Yes. Why now? Why, after so many years, the story goes out to the public? Where was Mr. Morris Talansky throughout all those years and why has he remained silent over more than 15 years? What is the meaning of the saying that the story was disclosed at a time when Olmert, after the renewed talks with Syria and possibly in light of his talks with the Palestinians, was about to sell out the land of Israel? The course of events in the latest months gives way to more than one reason to assume that a hidden agenda is stirring the whole anti-Olmert campaign. And I will try to explain how.

Back in the year 2000, right after the collapse of the Camp David talks, sponsored at the time by US President Bill Clinton and attended by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the two negotiating teams returned home. Right afterwards, intensive effort was made to avoid heading to a frontal showdown. The two parties managed to bridge, partly though, their gaps during the months that followed Camp David talks. When then Likud Chairman Ariel Sharon announced his intention to pay a visit to the Noble Sanctuary of Al Aqsa Mosque, known to Israelis as the temple mount, it was clear that Sharon's motivation had many things to do with his hidden agenda. Sharon served as minister in various governments of Israel and did not think of visiting the site. Nor did he think it was appropriate for him to go on such a tour that could stir anger among not only the Palestinians but also the Arab and Islamic Worlds.

However, when Sharon took the decision, it was clear that he felt something was being cooked behind scenes between the Palestinian leadership and Israel. The best way to torpedo an agreement in making, in Sharon's eyes, was to go ahead with that provocative visit and stir a reaction among the Palestinians that is not easy to contain.

Palestinian President Yasser Arafat, sensing that things were getting out of control and that both sides might find themselves in a frontal collision if that visit took place, asked PM Barak to do his best not to allow it. "If you really mean what you just called President Clinton on the phone that you are a genuine partner to peace, I ask to prevent Mr. Sharon from visiting the mosque. If not, such a visit might stir anger among the Palestinians. They may take to the streets and demonstrate. They may even go further in a wave of violence that neither me nor my security forces would be able to contain. It may blow up all what we have so far achieved," said Arafat to Barak as both stood on the balcony of the latter's house in Kochav Yair. The two leaders took to the balcony after a lengthy phone call between Barak and Clinton in which the Israeli prime minister spoke on the phone and Arafat listened. "I rang you, Mr. President, to say that we have ironed out lots of our differences and Mr. Arafat, who is standing next to me, will find out that I am a real partner to the peace of the braves with him. I will even be more generous to him than the late prime minister Yitzhak Rabin," said Barak to President Clinton referring in the last few words to the slain prime minister of Israel who was gunned down by an extreme right wing activist after attending a peace rally in Tel Aviv's Kings' Square on 5 November 1995.

When Arafat finished his request, Barak replied with a chilly response. "This is an internal Israeli matter and with due respect, I won't allow any one to interfere," he said. The visit went on and the rest of the story is known to all.

Today's anti-Olmert campaign may be a reminiscence of what happened then. This time, however, the right wing opposition under Benyamin Netanyahu found that it would be better to burn Olmert and to execute a political or character assassination against him in order to prevent the signing of an agreement possibly in making between the Palestinian leadership and Israel.

President Abbas and Premier Olmert have met at least eight times over the past year. Along with them, the negotiating teams of the Palestinians under Ahmad Qurei, Abu Ala'a, the former prime minister and a senior leader of FATAH movement, and of the Israelis under Tzipi Livni, the foreign minister, have held dozens of hours of sessions. Some estimate that the two sides have already spent over one hundred and twenty hours in meetings that were held in several places in Israel. Can one assume that all those meetings led to nowhere? It is extremely inconceivable to suggest that nothing was reached between the two parties. It is also clear that the two parties understand how detrimental prior publication of what they agreed can be to the talks and that it may explode that understanding in their faces. At the end of the day, what matters is the ability of the two parties to reach an agreement and not just to provide news material to the press, at the expense of a possible success.

Why now was the question I raised earlier. Why know has Talansky's alleged financial aid to Olmert come out? It is clear: Someone sitting somewhere in the Knesset, most certainly within the Likud Party, felt it is about time to undermine every effort Olmert has done to reach a deal, or at least a shelf agreement with the Palestinian President. Such an agreement, if signed even at the level of a non-paper document, would certainly be binding for any future government in Israel. Such an obligation is the last thing someone from the Likud would like to face once, if ever, is elected prime minister in Israel.

May God help us, Palestinians and Israelis alike, when the future of our two peoples depends on the personal agenda of those with minimal national responsibility and maximal personal ambitions.