Double Reverse Baby Split
Israeli trial balloon proposes giving the Pals some Jerusalem.
Stratfor’s of the opinion the offer is only intended to impress the Americans, so they can impress the Arabs:
Israel will agree to a division of Jerusalem, Israeli Vice Premier Haim Ramon said Oct. 8. According to Ramon, a close confidant of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, the move is supported not only by the two men’s centrist Kadima Party but also by coalition partners Labor and the right-of-center Yisrael Beiteinu (led by Strategic Affairs Minister Avigdor Lieberman). The plan has met opposition from others within the left-center-right coalition government, particularly the ultra-religious Shas party. Separately, the government denied reports that the Olmert administration has agreed to place Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem — including Temple Mount, called Al Haram Al Sharif by Muslims — under Jordanian jurisdiction.
At a time when the Olmert administration is very weak, any such radical move on its part could lead to its downfall. The plan therefore is not serious and instead only serves as a placeholder whereby the Israelis can signal to the United States that Israel is ready to make tough decisions and move toward a peace settlement with the Palestinians. However, such a move will allow the United States to go back to the Arabs — who are pressuring Washington for substantive progress in the November U.S.-led international Middle East conference — and argue that the Israelis are ready for tough decisions but the Palestinians are in disarray.
The Israelis know that with Hamas in charge in the Gaza Strip and Fatah in the West Bank, there can be no such deal with the divided Palestinians. In fact, the Israelis are just waiting for Hamas to reject the offer so the Jewish state can return to business as usual, as in 1999 during the Camp David talks between Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak.
The reported plans to divide Jerusalem will provide political ammunition to Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu, however, in his efforts to undermine Olmert, since even discussion of concessions to the Palestinians on Jerusalem will have a big impact on the Israeli population. The Israeli strategy, therefore, comes with risks.
That would make it a sort of Sol-olmertic double reverse baby split: You’re not expecting either mother to shriek and let the other have it, when both are looking a little bored with your dramatic scimitar pose. But you’d like the onlooking dignitaries to applaud you for proposing such a fair solution and advise you to drop the cleaver. Which you hope to accomplish without cutting your foot off.
AP had Olmert saying this, with some reax:
Olmert’s speech appeared to be a careful balancing act — sending an encouraging message to the Palestinians, while not giving his hardline critics at home too much ammunition by going into detail.
His central theme was a pledge not to miss an opportunity to reach a long-elusive peace deal, even if it requires costly concessions. Olmert said Israelis will have to let go of some of the beliefs that “fed the national ethos for many years,” a reference to giving up West Bank land.
Olmert praised Mahmoud Abbas, whom he has met six times since the spring, as a trustworthy partner, but at the same time portrayed the Palestinian president, known as Abu Mazen, as weak. “I know that the gap between the honest and fair intentions of Abu Mazen and (Palestinian Prime Minister) Salam Fayyad, and their ability to translate that into reality is troublesome and arouses concerns,” Olmert said.
Olmert was heckled occasionally, but interruptions were mild for Israel’s freewheeling parliament. “Is Jerusalem a dream?” legislator Reuven Rivlin shouted when Olmert, a former Jerusalem mayor, told parliament Israelis would have to forego some of their national dreams and aspirations.
Topics: Israel, Palestinians
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 12:12 am on Tuesday, October 9, 2007
4 Responses to “Double Reverse Baby Split”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
October 9th, 2007 at 3:43 am
I’m against it, therefore it’s good, in my opinion, that it won’t go through.
October 9th, 2007 at 11:02 am
What, again? Can’t they think of anything new?
October 9th, 2007 at 11:51 am
Ah yes, the “Peace Process”. Where Israel grants the “Palestinians” concessions and then gets suicide bombed and condemned by the UN.
I remember it well.
Not to be confused with the “Cycle of Violence”, where Israel gets suicide bombed, retaliates and then gets condemned by the UN.
October 9th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
On the mark, V of the C.