| Britain's No.1 quality newspaper website | Make us your homepage

Friday 22 August 2008

Israel's new leader must stop trying to emulate Sharon

By Con Coughlin

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 30/06/2006

Have your say Read comments

Ehud Olmert is no Ariel Sharon. However much the Israeli prime minister might try to uphold the legacy of his predecessor by his uncompromising military response to the kidnap of an Israeli soldier in Gaza, he will struggle to escape the giant shadow that Mr Sharon cast across the political landscape of the Middle East before he was incapacitated by a stroke at the end of last year.

Mr Sharon's career may have been plagued by controversy, but the belated transition he made from headstrong military combatant to creative peace architect has had a profound impact on both Israel's domestic political landscape and that of the entire region.

Unlike Mr Sharon, whose political identity was forged on the battlefield, Mr Olmert is a career politician whose only dealings with the military have been the occasional national service stint as a correspondent for Israel's army magazine.

In a martial country such as Israel, whose voters have traditionally been reassured by the presence of a battle-hardened veteran in the Prime Minister's Office, Mr Olmert is well aware that he needs to convince his countrymen that their security is as safe in his hands as it would have been under Mr Sharon.

For this reason, Mr Olmert has worked hard to position himself as Mr Sharon's heir apparent when the former prime minister's poor health made it impossible for him to continue in office. Mr Olmert's victory in March's general election owed much to his pledge to continue with Mr Sharon's policy of establishing Israel's final frontiers.

It was a theme Mr Olmert was more than happy to explore when I interviewed him during his recent visit to London for talks with Tony Blair on the future of the Middle East peace process.

"Sharon's greatness was his ability, once he came into office, to make a realistic assessment of what could be achieved and what could not," Mr Olmert explained. "As a result, he found himself making concessions that, out of office, he would never have accepted. I worked closely with him throughout this period. I saw all the problems; I saw how complex and demanding the problems we face as a nation are. Working with Sharon gave me enormous inspiration and strength."

Mr Olmert's determination to prove himself a worthy successor to Mr Sharon and his credentials as a wartime leader may well explain the extreme military measures he has initiated in Gaza following the abduction this week of Corporal Gilad Shalit by Islamic extremists.

Israeli prime ministers are rarely inclined to demonstrate restraint when responding to Palestinian provocation: the biblical eye-for-an-eye ethos is far too deeply ingrained in the national psyche for that.

But even by Israeli standards, Mr Olmert's response to the corporal's kidnap is hard to justify on either military or political grounds.

Certainly the tactics used by the Israeli Defence Force, from razing Gaza's only fully functional power station to detaining dozens of Palestinian political leaders, constitutes a dramatic escalation when compared to tactics Tel Aviv used the last time one of its soldiers was abducted.

When, in 1994, Hamas militants seized 19-year-old Nachshon Waxman, Yitzhak Rabin, the then prime minister and himself a war hero equal in stature to Mr Sharon, responded by closing off the West Bank to enable a team of Israeli special forces set up a daring rescue plan (which ultimately failed).

The circumstances of the Waxman and Shalit abductions differ, in that the West Bank was still under Israeli occupation, whereas Gaza has been semi-autonomous - and utterly chaotic - since Mr Sharon unilaterally withdrew Israeli forces last August.

Even so, the overwhelming military force that Mr Olmert is directing against the Gazan population in Operation Summer Rains is excessive even by Israeli standards.

And while Mr Olmert will be hoping that his tough stand will banish any doubts from the minds of the Israeli public about his own military credentials, he is nevertheless running the risk of jeopardising Israel's long-term security interests for his own political ambition.

As last January's Palestinian elections demonstrated, the more Israel subjects the Palestinian population to collective punishment, the more the Palestinians are inclined to vote for extreme Islamic radical groups such as Hamas.

And the stronger the rejectionist Islamic parties become, the less likely they are to respond to overtures from either Israel or the outside world that it is in their long-term interests to negotiate a lasting peace deal.

Although Mr Olmert's immediate priority is to secure the kidnapped corporal's release, he should not lose sight of the fact that, at some point in the next

12 months, he will have to start work on implementing his key election pledge - to finalise Israel's borders by withdrawing from the occupied West Bank.

In order to achieve this, Mr Olmert insists that his preference is for a negotiated solution with the Palestinians. At least, that is what he told both President Bush and Mr Blair during his recent visits to Washington and London.

Just how serious Mr Olmert and the Israeli government are about a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians, however, remains open to question.

Even before Hamas came to power last January, Mr Sharon made no serious attempt to discuss his plans to evacuate Gaza with Mahmoud Abbas, his Palestinian counterpart.

Now that Hamas controls the Palestinian Authority, Mr Abbas's power base has been seriously eroded, as his futile attempts to intervene in the Shalit abduction have demonstrated.

Hamas's continued refusal to recognise Israel's right to return does not exactly make them the perfect negotiating partner, but before the latest crisis erupted there were indications that Hamas could be persuaded to modify its rhetoric on the grounds that opening a dialogue with Israel was preferable to complete international ostracism.

But the longer Mr Olmert persists with destroying what little is left of the Palestinians' infrastructure in Gaza, the less inclined the Hamas leadership will be to negotiate with Israel, particularly if the current military incursion leads to a full-scale eruption of hostilities.

This may well suit Mr Olmert, irrespective of the pledges he has given Mr Bush and Mr Blair about adhering to the principles of the much-maligned "road map" for a permanent Arab/Israeli peace deal.

The authority of the American President to influence events grows less by the day, and Mr Blair is increasingly preoccupied about the date of his own departure. In these circumstances, Mr Olmert could be forgiven for thinking he can do exactly as he pleases.

Tempting as it might be for the Israeli government to pursue a unilateralist agenda, it should be remembered that it is not just the security of Israel that will be threatened if the Palestinian issue remains unresolved. The "plight of the Palestinians" is a potent propaganda tool for the recruiting sergeants of radical Islamic groups in the Middle East and beyond, and will remain so for as long as the Palestinians' aspirations for statehood are unfulfilled.

For the moment, Mr Olmert's primary objective in ordering the Israeli military into Gaza is to demonstrate that he is as tough as Mr Sharon, both as a politician and a military leader.

But what the outside world is waiting to see is whether or not he has the qualities of a true statesman.

Have your say

News: West Bank crisis grows

Comments

'Eye for eye and tooth for tooth', does Mr Coughlin really think states should forever turn the other cheek - or is this stricture only to be applied to the Jewish state?
His statement that Israel has shown no restraint over the 100s of rockets (now including Katyushas) is laughable if it wasn't so serious. Would France, Spain or Italy respond like that is a neighbour continually rocketed them?
Posted by charles soper on July 1, 2006 11:21 PM
Report this comment

Such a vile article. First we have the illegitimate premise of the article. The abduction of the soldier was merely the straw that broke the camel's back after well over a thousand missiles had been fired at Israel. Second, we have the anti-Jewish slur. The "biblical eye-for-an-eye" (that old canard so beloved of bigots the world over) has nothing to do with revenge and everything to do with with justice and the punishment fitting the crime. Thirdly, we have the gross hypocrisy. When the UK was directly threatened it collaborated in genocide twice - at Dresden and Hiroshima. Even when the UK has not been threatened, it hasn't thought twice about killing innocent civilians in Serbia, Afghanistan and Iraq. With articles like this appearing daily in the British press, can anyone be surprised that as the days go by I am more and more ashamed of being British and more and more proud of my Jewish heritage?
Posted by Sean Courtney on July 1, 2006 2:36 PM
Report this comment

Throughout history peace has only been achieved when there is a victor and a vanquished. That has never happened in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians because the rest of the world has constantly intervened to prevent an Israeli victory.
Posted by Ian on July 1, 2006 12:16 AM
Report this comment

A more balanced article would have asked why the Hamas-led administration tolerates the firing of rockets into Israel, and whether these rockets were a factor in provoking "Operation Summer Rains".
Posted by Dr John Clark on June 30, 2006 11:17 PM
Report this comment

Israel places a high value on human life. Israel has a right to exist . Israel will flourish , and prosper because it values human life. Israel does not strap bombs to young men and brainwash them into believing they are performing a wonderful thing by blowing up innocent people.
Posted by Carol Collier on June 30, 2006 10:50 PM
Report this comment

Mr. Con Coughlin knows better than most that the palestinians will always try to change the goalposts whenever a settlement appears likely. At the start of the latest 'intifada', he wrote that no matter what arafat claimed, the co-option of Jerusalem as pivotal to the palestinians, was a recent phenomenon. He pointed out that Jerusalem was not even mentioned in the fatah charter until fairly recently. Why the change in tone, Mr. Coughlin?
Posted by Lily Amior on June 30, 2006 9:20 PM
Report this comment

Sir,

I regret that Mary Jackson is incorrect in stating that the Jews were
entitled to the whole of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. I would draw your
(and her) attention to the original UN map which can be found at:
link

Here you will see that the Jews were granted only a thin strip down the
Mediterranean coast; that the West Bank had a land bridge to Gaza and that
Gaza extended well into Negev (Negeb)

Yours

M Paine

Posted by M Paine on June 30, 2006 4:43 PM
Report this comment

Dear Barnshee - I do recognize your right to express your opinion - but please, PLEASE do it from a basis of recorded history and a reasonable amount of basic knowledge of the situation before putting yourself out on a limb.

I know that you are only one among hundreds of thousands - if not millions - who seem to think that we have stolen land. Please be informed :-

If you believe in God - either as a Christian - especially a modern Evangelical Christian - or a Jew or a Muslim, then you must know that this land was promised to the Jews, through Abraham, by God (or Allah, if you prefer) about 3-4,000 BCE, and occupied by them CONTINUOUSLY - although in varying degrees of numbers and power - from about 1,200 BCE until the present day - over 1,800 years BEFORE Islam was created in the late 6th Century CE by Mohammed.

If you do NOT believe in God then presumably you believe in the "right-by-conquest" school? - OK!

This land was "stolen" (your word), FROM THE JEWS in about 584 BCE by the Babylonian, Nebuchadnezzar and returned to them by Cyrus about 60-70 years later.

It was again "stolen" from the Jews by Alexander the Great in about 330 but they managed to compromise and eventually redeem it in about 160 BCE, only to lose it again around 70 BCE to the Roman conqueror, Pompeus. With quite a few ups and downs, occasionally even with a degree of autonomy, We reamined under Roman rule until the first coming of Christian rule under the Byzantine Emperor Constantine the Great in the fourth Century.

In the 7th Century there was another brief Persian conquest and in 628 Islam conquered the land. But in 1099 they lost it in a second conquest by the Christian world - that of the Crusaders, who held it for a mere 200 years giving way to the Mamelukes.

They, in turn, lost it to the Ottomans, who held it until the end of WWI when the British took control. After 26 years they gave up and left, and it was again fought over, this time by the original "owners" - the Jews - and again the Arabs. To a large - but not total - degree, the Jews won - again.
Throughout this entire period of history Jews were present in their land.

Now tell me, please, who has the GREATER right to this country?
Posted by Selwyn Rose on June 30, 2006 3:47 PM
Report this comment

MAURA COLLINS COMPLAINS: "There are already 4 Arab M.K.s in the KNesset..."

Arabs and other non-Jews form about 20% of the Israeli population -- this does not include Palestinians, but only Israeli citizens.

If Israel were a fair and genuine democracy, one would expect there to be closer to 24 Arab M.K.s, not the mere 4 Maura mentions.
Posted by Arik Silverman on June 30, 2006 3:40 PM
Report this comment

Right of return ? Are you kidding me? After a few years we would then see how well the Jews would be treated by those who they gave the 'right of return' to. There are already 4 Arab M.K.s in the Knesset, how many Jewish Ministers are there in any other country outside Israel in the Middle East? Apart from that, what is the point of holding this Israeli kid hostage, as the Israeli's are just going to dig their heels in and stand firm. The Palestinian's will indeed bear the brunt of this most stupid kidnapping, but then again, we all end up with the governemnt we voted into power.
Posted by maura collins on June 30, 2006 2:32 PM
Report this comment

I am glad to see that the author has referred to "detained" Palestinian politicians, and not "arrested", in relation to the kidnapping by Israel in recent days, and indeed in past months and years, including assassinations, of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank. The word "arrest" which has been frequently used in other newspaper and television reports, infers a legal framework, which does not exist between Israel and Palestine.
Posted by elisabeth stevens on June 30, 2006 1:54 PM
Report this comment

The sooner we stop expecting the two sides to 'negotiate' (about what I'm always tempted to ask), the sooner we will realise that this is merely one facet of a more general conflict of ideas in which we are all implicated one way or another. We have to start talking seriously about what we expect of the two sides, and what the bottom lines are. There is very clearly a large majority of Palestinians who do not accept Israel's right to exist, and as long as this situation obtains, Israel's actions should be assessed in this light. If the Palestinians started behaving as if they accepted this, and that the 1967 borders were their ultimate aim for statehood, then progress might be possible. Until then, I don't really see what choice the Israeli government has. Most of all, we need to stop pretending that Israel is the main obstacle to an eventual settlement. Every concession they have made to the Palestinians for the last 30 years has been rewarded with more and more terrorism. The international community needs to start making its support for Palestinian statehood conditional upon them occupying the moral high ground. Advocacy of suicide bombings, kidnappings, and the tactics of defiant martyrdom will only produce a downward spiral in which their suffering is further and further exacerbated.

Should Gilad be sent back unharmed and without conditions, I might be impressed. Sadly, when even the elected government try to attach conditions to his release, even though they ostensibly condemn it, I just get a depressing sense of deja vue.
Posted by Douglas Bulloch on June 30, 2006 12:56 PM
Report this comment

A "true statesman" in Mr. Coughlin's opinion would be an Israeli politician who ignored his country's desperate fight to survive.
Posted by Omadhaun on June 30, 2006 12:41 PM
Report this comment

By the original Palestinian Mandate, Jews are entitled to the whole of the West Bank and Gaza strip. Concession after concession has been given to the so-called Palestinians. The Palestinians elected democratically a terrorist government whose charter mandates the destruction of Israel. But this is Israel's fault?

I'm surprised to see this in The Telegraph, rather than the Guardian.
Posted by Mary Jackson on June 30, 2006 12:36 PM
Report this comment

Many of the replies here have simply demonstrated the utter depravity of Israel and it's apologists.
Tha Palestinian people have never been offered peace. Even at Camp David all they got was the chance to be fenced into tiny cantons while not one single criminal Israeli settler was to be removed from the West Bank. Irael was to have more than half the land, control the water, control the airspace, control the borders - this is the kind of peace the Palestian people have to accept.
Get real, Israel has never wanted peace. They need war to perpetuate the myth of jewish victimhood. The American fundamentalist crazies who bankroll them don't want peace - they are too drunk on stories of a final conflagration, rapture and armageddon to have a spark of humanity.
Amid all this, the Palestinian people still suffer.
Posted by Andrew Dale on June 30, 2006 12:26 PM
Report this comment

I say both side that this is the time of peace.No one say me ooh, this at time? I say that again yes..yes.. If the peace is not possible and then when.all must know that "big births come after big suffering" there is a table here at any quarter of which there is no one. It is enough. Come here and solve this matter by speaking not fighting.
Posted by anthony steel on June 30, 2006 11:51 AM
Report this comment

Mr. Coughlin should look around himself in Britain to see, and try very hard to understand, the results of appeasing lunatics consumed by a hatred that's centuries old and continuously stoked by manipulative maniacs. The 'Palestinians' and 'Arabs' have been openly and generously offered compromise after compromise, backed by scores of billions of dollars worth of aid and cooperation (more than enough to bring their economies running into the 21st century) -- but (their 'leaders') have chosen, time after time, to (have their populations) remain in states of stone age ignorance, poverty and savagery. To them, 'civilised' behaviour is cowardly behaviour.
Posted by Alex Dryden on June 30, 2006 11:31 AM
Report this comment

For heaven's sake is there no one in Israel and Palestine - a bold person - who would bring these two sides closer and sort this mess out?
Human suffering on both sides is now beyond words.
Give peace a chance, for the next generation needs to move forward.
Posted by Heri Baraka on June 30, 2006 11:25 AM
Report this comment

Corporal Gilad Shalit could have been killed in the initial exchange with the Hamas military element. This would have been an almost routine matter along the border.

None of the present events relating to his apparent kidnapping would then have taken place. What on earth does Hamas achieve from seizing this minor corporal and what does Israel achieve from her sledgehammer approach to the situation?

Lose-lose every time with Israel and the Palestinians. Never have two neighbours - neither of whom is ever going to go away - been so hell bent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory (when it comes to a lasting peace settlement) over and over again.

You sometimes wonder if they deserve each other.
Posted by simon coulter on June 30, 2006 11:17 AM
Report this comment

Interesting article. However, if Sharon were still around, even he might recognise that his retreat from Gaza was a complete fiasco. He dispossessed 9000 Israeli people from their homes - most of whom have not found jobs and who live in shanty towns. And in return, we have the incessant rocket attacks to which the military has no suitable response. Presumably, in 10 years time, there will be no open space in Gaza which isn't cratered by shells?
If Olmert is intent on pursuing this same course then he really needs a visit by the white-coated men; if the Israel voters don't boot him out then they all need such a visit.

Posted by MM on June 30, 2006 11:16 AM
Report this comment

Israelis steal Palestine land and murder Palestinians, then complain when Palestinians try to respond. These are terrible people.
Posted by barnshee on June 30, 2006 10:24 AM
Report this comment

An unfortunate slip in this piece.
Seventh para from end should read "Israel's right
to exist", not as written "Israel's right to return."
Posted by Clive Davies on June 30, 2006 9:23 AM
Report this comment

The most opinion is right, but this argument -
"the biblical eye-for-an-eye ethos is far too deeply ingrained in the national psyche for that." -
is not.
Posted by peet_g on June 30, 2006 9:19 AM
Report this comment

I disagree with what Mr Con Coughlin
wrote. If he lived in the the town of Shderot near Ashkelon( South West Negev) and was bombed daily by at least ten Kasam rockets which are fired from Beit Hanoon which is in Gaza he would understand that this situation cannot continue. This current operation is to try and stop the firing of rockets from Gaza strip which has been given back to the Palestinians into Israel.
Posted by joelfridjohn on June 30, 2006 8:18 AM
Report this comment

I think that now we have introduced yet another facet to the Palestinian Israeli argument with the staement from the autor of 'Hamas's continued refusal to recognise Israel's right to return'. Now I understand that one of the main issues that perpetuates this issue is Israels continueds refusal to recognise the Palestinians' right of return! Let's not try and introduce more myths to this over complicated situation
Posted by Anne Hauzar on June 30, 2006 8:10 AM
Report this comment

Before writing this article the author should have made an excurse into the Israeli history for more than the five last years. That history has two great prime-ministers who also lacked first hand military experience, yet became great for their roles in guiding the country through the toughest times. D.Ben-Gurion and L.Eshkol. So Mr. Olmert has other great leaders besides A.Sharon to look up to.
This whole article is saturated with thinly veiled attempts to put all the blame on the Israelis. The "overwhelming, excessive" Isareli military response. Even if no real battles even happened yet, after so many days of restraint. Why compare the Shali's case with the Waxman's case? Does the author uncontiousely wishes the same result?
Very lengthy, quasi analytical and weal article. Too bad.
Posted by Alex on June 30, 2006 7:26 AM
Report this comment

Ehud Olmert ran on a platform written by Ariel Sharon. Now that he was elected, it would make little sense to expect him to act differently. Anyone familiar with Israel strategy should understand that much more is at stake than just the abduction of a single Israel soldier. If Israel does not stop these type of acts immediately, then Israel will deteriate into another Iraq, and I can assure you that that will not happen. Until the Palestinians agree to sincerely negotaite peace with Israel, the current Israel response is what they can expect to attacks on its sovereign territory. The Palestinian people must be responsible for their actions; they elected Hamas as their leaders, now they must bear the consequences.
Posted by Ehad Haam on June 30, 2006 6:29 AM
Report this comment

Hmmm. But Mr Coughlin, not a word about the plight of the Israeli people - as usual from Islam apologists.
Comfortable observations, about what the Israelis should or should not do, viewed from cosy Europe, must surely be placed in a proper context.
If the Channel and the North Sea did not exist, if France, Holland, Germany, Spain, Norway, etc., were all run by bellicose, non-democratic theocracies determined upon the eradication of Britain, how do you think you might react to continual assaults upon your people?
Posted by Graham King on June 30, 2006 6:13 AM
Report this comment

So Mr. Olmert needs to be a statesman, does he?
Just as Chamberlain tried to be a true statesman
when dealing with Adolf Hitler, no doubt!
Forget all that BBC crap. Israel will defend itself, and the
whole world can't stop us! You tried before and
look what happened. We became stronger. Did
anyone ever really think that out of the ashes of
the holocaust that the nation of Israel would rise?
After this war, brought about by unyielding
hatred for jews, will result in the expansion of
Israel's borders to the Euphrates River. There will
be much pain, but ultimately the flag of the Star
of David will rise over the Middle East. Bring it on, Baby!
Posted by frank on June 30, 2006 5:08 AM
Report this comment

Sir,
I agree with the writer that no one can effectively stand in Sharon's empty shoes and it is our misfortune to lose him at a critical juncture in our present situation. But I rather suspect that he would have been much more forceful and not less - and my whole thesis here is to remind everyone that it is only the strong who can make peace, never the weak.
Since the Peel Commission in the thirties until today there has never been one single occasions that today's so-called "Palestinians" (until 1948 both Jew and Arab in this country were officially identified as being either Palestinian Arab, or Palestinian Jew) have exited any kind of negotiating forum in a positive mode; they could have had a state of their own innumerable times, reaping with us the mutual benefits of progress, social and technical.
Certainly we are neither "saints" nor have all our actions been correct but to constantly direct the attention of the world to "what Israel does" and how Israel reacts, is quite simply and (unfortunately a successful) media exercise in "How to Shape Public Opinion Without Really Trying."

Posted by Selwyn Rose on June 30, 2006 5:03 AM
Report this comment

For the moment.....you need to see that his actions speak louder than words. Terror has no place in a free society.
Posted by macaroni on June 30, 2006 5:00 AM
Report this comment

I think the "eye for an eye" supposed motivation for Israel's attack to free its captured soldier misses the point entirely. What is relevant is the searing lesson of the Holocaust when Jewish life was worth little. The culture in Israel is to reverse that and place a very high value on human life. This drives the invasion-to free the captive. In Israel, each death of a countyman in war is mourned as if if the victim was a member of each Israeli's family - as in a strong sense he is.
Posted by Ken Pickar on June 30, 2006 4:30 AM
Report this comment

The usual rubbish from 'experts'. When are they going to get it into their heads that Palestinians want war, not peace. They could have had their state in 1947 if they wanted it. They don't, they want to kill Jews instead. 60 years later and the 'experts' still can't see past the end of their noses.
Posted by Christopher Holland on June 30, 2006 3:11 AM
Report this comment

When Israel quit Gaza, it was made clear to the Hamas that should attacks on Israel occur, from the Gaza Strip, then Israel's response would be massive.
The Palestinian Authority, under Hamas is a terror authority and that is unacceptable to Jerusalem. Daily rocket attacks, the kidnapping and murder of an 18 year old boy and the abduction of the soldier, from Israel proper, are an adequate pretext for military action.

What does the Palestinian government wish itself to be? A terror organisation, bent on the destruction of Israel, or an elected, democracy responsible for the welfare of its people.
Posted by Peter Lewin on June 30, 2006 3:00 AM
Report this comment

Dt Opinion