Leading article: A long overdue departure
Friday, 1 August 2008
It is welcome that Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has resigned. For months now his Government has been paralysed by allegations against him. Public support for him has plummeted. His Cabinet has been in open revolt. But his statement that he intends to go in two long months' time is too tardy.
Mr Olmert has been a weak leader ever since the Israeli government inquiry blamed his bad planning for the botched invasion of Lebanon. That came after some significant personal achievements. Mr Olmert steadied the ship of state, and the infant Kadima party, in the uncertain times after his predecessor Ariel Sharon suffered a stroke and went into a coma. He then relaunched peace talks with the Palestinians, which had been in the doldrums for eight years, and engaged in indirect talks with Syria, consolidating Mr Sharon's centrist course for peace.
But after the Lebanon inquiry he was a lame duck. Then came allegations that he took envelopes of money from the US businessman Morris Talansky and that he double-claimed for expenses when he was trade minister and mayor of Jerusalem. He has faced four other corruption investigations – on allegations all of which he denies – during his time in office.
Little can be achieved in the two extra months he has given himself in office. The peace talks with the Palestinians and Syrians will stall, despite assurances to the contrary. The ruling party will be plunged into a succession battle at a time of heightened tension over Iran's refusal to abandon its nuclear programme, on which Israel has hinted at air strikes.
Mr Olmert is only going after soundings that he would have come last in his own party leadership contest. He also clearly wants to spare himself the potential indignity of being indicted for corruption while in office. He could have done more. Peace is inevitably negotiated by strong leaders and Israel cannot afford to have a weak one. It is to be hoped that the forthcoming contest will resolve that, though the Israeli electoral system which gives undue weight to small extreme parties will far from guarantee this. Ehud Olmert would have done his country and the region a service had he stepped down much earlier.
-
Print Article
-
Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2008 Independent News and Media Limited
Let's not exaggerate. The Israel government has been functioning much as it had during the preceding year, with these allegations causing some effect on Olmert, but certainly not paralyzing his government.
Olmert did not make a statement that he "would go in two months", rather that he would hand over leadership to the next elected leader of his Kadima party, next month.
"He [Olmert] also clearly wants to spare himself the potential indignity of being indicted for corruption while in office." As he is a member of the Knesset (parliament) that cannot happen without Knesset approval, and before which he would, in any case, need to step down.
The succession battle (Kadima party primaries) started before Olmert announced that he would not stand in the primaries.
And yes, Richard (who also posted here), Olmert is centrist. But for some reason I get the feeling that you don't like Ehud Olmert or Israel either. So, for you Olmert is extreme right, black is white, and night is day.
Posted by Ben Ami | 02.08.08, 08:14 GMT
I am surprised that this paper used the term "centrerist" to describe Sharon and Olmert's political positions - better terms might have been extreme right and illegal - Olmert, like Sharon before him, deserves not praise for the butchery he has perpetrated in Gaza and Lebanon, and the illegal policies he has supported in the Occupied Palestinian Territories but rather a place alongside Karadzic at the Hague. Olmert, like Sharon before him is a war criminal, we in the West only refuse to see him as such because he, like Bush and Blair, is one of our war criminals.
Posted by Richard | 01.08.08, 23:13 GMT