Is Israel's new "peace" plan just spin?

Yep.
---
Last update - 09:57 30/11/2006

Plan or spin?

By Meron Benvenisti

The prime minister's speech at Sde Boker on Monday did not cause much excitement among Palestinian spokesmen, nor did it stir up a wave of protest from the Israeli right. The lukewarm responses give rise to puzzlement, considering that in his address Ehud Olmert delineated his political plan for the immediate, interim and long-term - a plan that is the most dovish, conciliatory and far-reaching of any offered by an Israeli leader in recent years.

It seems that Olmert collected all the slogans of the "peace camp" and packed them into a single, not-so-clear message, but with wording that is more placatory than normally acceptable in the official positions of Israel. No wonder that the speech was seen by some as a response to the admonishment made by David Grossman during his speech at the rally in memory of Yitzhak Rabin.
It is worth noting the wording of key statements: The Palestinian state, which to date was imagined with temporary borders and partial sovereignty, and in which transportation continuity was to be maintained by tunnels and bridges, was transformed by Olmert into a viable state with contiguous territory, full sovereignty and defined borders. Such a state will be established by "real, open, honest and serious" dialogue, and not, as in the past, on the basis of unilateralism, and after "the evacuation of many territories and communities which were established therein."

Olmert also mentioned the Saudi Arabian initiative, though he did not raise the question of Jerusalem, and he narrowed the debate over the "right of return" to a question only of "implementing" that right. Thus did he hint, or at least wanted to give the impression, that he recognizes the ethos behind the return, even if not the actual return of refugees.

His generosity was evident also on the issue of prisoner release, "including those who were sentenced to lengthy prison terms"; in other words, those with "blood on their hands." He promised the Palestinians "relief" in ways that will improve their quality of life, limit the number of checkpoints and even lead to the creation of joint industrial zones.

All this goodness, of course, is to be granted the Palestinians only after they meet some preconditions that they have until now have refused to fulfill. Nonetheless, the chances of success of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations do not affect the commitment Olmert has made, and on which he will be held accountable.

If this is the case, why then haven't his statements drawn stronger responses, except for the sounds of excitement on the part of the left, whose agenda he adopted? Part of the answer is lodged in the feeling that Olmert is floating a new spin, and that he has no intention of carrying out his plan; just as he shelved the convergence plan, so will he do away with the Sde Boker plan.

With Olmert, the gap between his declarations and actions, in conjunction with the refusal of the Palestinians to meet the preconditions they consider unacceptable, ensure that his plan will not be carried out. In any case, he put forth his leftist plan because he knew it would appeal to the chattering classes, and these (if the trick works) will crown him the leader of the left - just as they did Ariel Sharon once he announced his plan for withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. From that point on, Olmert will be subject to kid-glove treatment, and become immune to all criticism.

The leftist slant of his plan is so blatant that it is too good to be true. What led Olmert to suddenly alter the accepted wording of Israeli diplomacy, and even that of the road map? The Palestinians say that Olmert should indeed carry out first a "series of actions to improve the quality of life," something he had promised to do in the past, and in the meantime put aside the questions of the right of return and the permanent borders of the Palestinian state.

Olmert's plan is greeted with suspicion and doubts because of past experience. But the effort to present a plan that is meant to move matters toward a permanent settlement should not be rejected with derision, if for no other reason than the hope it stirs.

Olmert is permitted to enjoy his improved standing in public opinion following the announcement of his bold plan. But, the greater the hope it arouses, the deeper the disappointment will be if it turns out that it was just a spin. Even for a spin doctor, this one will be one too many.