Olmert is rejecting Hanukkah miracle from Syria

Olmert's Hanukkah miracle

By Israel Harel

Since the Lebanon fiasco, the ground has been shaking beneath Ehud Olmert's chair. He did manage to thwart the demand to establish a state commission of inquiry, but even the Winograd Committee may mark him as the bearer of supreme responsibility for the failures that caused Israel to lose a war for the first time in its history. To survive the political and military failure and the entanglements of the investigations, Olmert knows - and the precedent set by Ariel Sharon proves - that the path of making territorial concessions is his only hope for saving himself from ousting and perhaps a trial. Only by making additional sacrifices in this area will he reach the protected status of "etrog," as the media called Sharon.

This means that every failure will be forgiven, every shady deal laundered, every file closed. If Sharon was absolved retroactively for the sin of Lebanon and the sin of creating the settlements merely by proposing to uproot Jewish communities, all the more will Olmert, who does not bear the burden of even one-hundredth of the reasons for which Sharon was hated and persecuted in Israeli politics, gain the approval of the country's media and legal system.

There is even a Hanukkah miracle, which could win him the validation of all the political and legal elements who are after him: Bashar Assad is calling, publicly, for direct talks with Israel. In contrast to the past, the Syrian leader says, without preconditions.

But in an incomprehensible and even surprising way, the beneficiary of the miracle, who should immediately have grasped that he has been given a one-time opportunity to extricate himself from his troubles, does not discern the miracle and rejects the proffered hand.

Never mind that the head of the Mossad, whose job it is to be suspicious - and who obviously also has information to support his suspicions, told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that "Assad is not really offering negotiations," or "the Syrians have preconditions." But for Olmert to reject, contrary to his survival instinct, dialogue with Assad because "first Syria's actions must be examined, not only its words"?

The declaration is surprising. If he responds positively to the Syrians, he will become the darling of the decision-makers, he will receive the status of etrog and will gain much political and legal time. What is he being asked to sacrifice, after all - the Golan Heights? If, as a graduate of the Betar movement, he is willing to give up most of Judea and Samaria to the Arabs, he will all the more not spare the Golan Heights.

This is unlikely to be the reason. Even his statement after his meeting with Tony Blair, and despite Blair's support of this line, is not persuasive: "Our demands are clear: (even before negotiations) Syria must stop undermining the Siniora government in Lebanon and stop supporting terror."

The prime minister received a hint as to the thoughts of those who have the power to decide his political or legal future, in a series of articles the line of which most of the media and the legal system usually toes: The main thrust is that Olmert should respond positively to the Syrian even if the U.S. is opposed, unless it turns out that this is a Syrian trick. Certainly from the perspective of these circles, there is no reason, if the maneuver turns out to be real, not to give the Syrians the Golan Heights and destroy the settlements. It is therefore entirely incomprehensible that this seasoned man does not take advantage of the most serious opportunity that has ever crossed his path to save his standing and his position and also, as with the Sharon precedent, to get rid of his legal troubles. Moreover, if the talks with the Syrians do get started, it is reasonable to assume that the Winograd Committee, like Menachem Mazuz with disengagement, will take the revolutionary political circumstances into consideration and not dare take responsibility for dismissing a prime minister at the height of peace talks with Syria.

The media, among whom Olmert has more personal friends than Sharon had, will certainly act this way. They will happily once again come to his aid after he has won the appropriate approval.
The accepted explanation, that American interests are the reason Olmert has not responded to the Syrians, is not convincing. In the past the Americans never came out against a move that led to Israeli withdrawal, even if they were surprised and taken aback by Israel's moves, as was the case at the beginning of the Oslo process - and subsequently, when the process was bogged down, they ardently demanded its implementation.

It is a clear American interest that Syria depart the axis of evil following receipt of the Golan. It is therefore reasonable to assume that in absolute contradiction to the public rejection of Assad's initiative, something significant is happening beneath the surface in the Israel-Syria arena. And to surprise us all, and thus increase the effect of the achievement, Olmert's and Livni's unconvincing declarations are being aired ("We must know when the opportunity is real and when it is only an image of one").

Then will the exaltation of the etrog, if the breakthrough is significant, be carried from the ends of the country to the ends of the earth.