Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declares the overall political peace process as the main point of contention between Israeli and Palestinian officials while dismissing settlements as relevant, he wrote in an op-ed in today’s Washington Post. Instead of focusing on the settlements, Olmert suggests focusing on institution building, such as establishing a vibrant Palestinian economy. He writes,
“The insistence now on a complete freeze on settlement construction — impossible to completely enforce — will not promote Palestinian efforts to enhance security measures; the institution building that is so crucial for the development of a Palestinian state; better movement and access to the Palestinians; nor an improved economy in the West Bank. Nor will it weaken the Hamas government in Gaza. It will not bring greater security to Israel, help improve Israel’s relations with the Arab world, strengthen a coalition of moderate Arab states or shift the strategic balance in the Middle East.”
Moreover, Olmert contends that focusing on settlements simply sabotages efforts to discuss real issues. He claims that the U.S.-Israel dialogue should revolve around terrorism, Iran, and a real peace process instead of a tangential issue like settlements. He writes,
“Settlement construction should be taken off the public agenda and moved to a discrete dialogue, as in the past. This would enhance our bilateral relations and allow us to deal with the essential issues: the political process; preventing Iran’s attempt to obtain nuclear weapons; eliminating Islamic extremist terrorism; and creating the necessary dialogue for normalizing relations between Israel and the Arab world.”
Further, Olmert romanticized the Annapolis Summit from 2007 as a major event while most analysts dismiss the conference as irrelevant. Olmert claims that he offered Palestinians all of their demands to establish an independent state. However, Palestinians claim that Olmert’s offer did not include the right of return, would have left thousands of settlers in the Palestinian state, and lack freedom of movement between Palestinian territories. Regardless, most observers of the summit did not expect any real outcome and many individuals in the current Israeli government reject the agreements reached in 2007. He writes,
“To this day, I cannot understand why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees.”
Photo take from the Washington Post.