������Ƶ

The latest episode of Arab News’ “Frankly Speaking” series of interviews lived up to its name and reputation when interviewer Katie Jensen took on former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, never an easy interviewee but always good value in terms of straight talking.

Olmert, who will celebrate his 80th birthday next month, has in recent years taken on the mantle of the responsible adult of Israeli politics, a kind of a sage at the gate warning against the existential dangers emanating from Benjamin Netanyahu’s long and unbearable tenure as prime minister — even more so since the latter has partnered in power with the most extreme right-wing messianic elements in Israeli politics.

Olmert is challenging to interview but never boring or short of novel ideas, partly because of his own personal and political journey, which lends much weight to what he says, but partly because he is ready to deliver certain home truths that few others in Israeli politics are willing to articulate with the same courage.

This is especially important in these dark days for Israel’s politics and society. His political career has ranged from the heights of serving in government and ascending to the prime minister’s office, as well as the rock bottom of resigning from that office after he was indicted for corruption and given a custodial sentence.

Beyond the characteristic thorny and tenacious exterior of this “sabra” (a term for a Jewish person born in Israel that is derived from the word for a prickly pear cactus, which is tough on the outside and soft on the inside) there also lies a thoughtful and courageous leader. This is not only because when in power he was prepared to change course whenever he deemed it necessary, even if it meant upsetting his electoral base, but also because with Olmert there is always a learning curve and a readiness to explore new frontiers.

This is something that has been especially significant in his relentless quest for peace with the Palestinians, and his constant search for new partners on both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, most recently his collaboration with Nasser Al-Kidwa, the former Palestinian foreign minister and head of the Palestinian delegation to the UN.

What Arab News managed, very skillfully, to extract from the interview went beyond consideration of Olmert’s views on the current situation and how to resolve it, to also explore the very limits of discourse in Israel, even for one of the Netanyahu government’s harshest critics.

Firstly, when it was put to him that he supported the idea that Israel’s prime minister should be tried in The Hague for war crimes, he was quick to protest that he would prefer to see Netanyahu stand in front of judges in Israel to answer for his alleged war crimes against the people of Israel, as justice should be done at home.

The second limitation touched on the most sensitive war-related issue for most Israelis: whether or not Israel’s actions in Gaza constitute genocide. Olmert pushed the envelope of the discussion as far as possible in stating, very clearly, that war crimes were being committed in Gaza, but he knew that the very mention of the word genocide might completely discredit him and distract from the need to end the war and embark on peace building. However, the former prime minister was unequivocal in his declaration that he could not “tolerate it and forgive it (the war crimes) because I care for the lives of the Palestinians as for any other human beings.”

Olmert presented an alternative course of action to the brutal and heartless actions of the Netanyahu government against the people of Gaza.

Yossi Mekelberg

Considering the immeasurable suffering that has been inflicted by the Israeli military on the people of Gaza, this expression of empathy seems both obvious and natural, but it has not been the view of many Israelis since the Oct. 7 attacks. It is, therefore, important for Israelis, and for the wider region, to hear this from a former prime minister, and in particular one whose political roots lie not to the left of the political spectrum or in the peace camp, but one who represented the Likud party in the Knesset for 27 years and was in government for much of that time.

In his transformation, he has moved on from the idea of a “Greater Israel,” of building settlements on occupied Palestinian land, first by supporting disengagement from Gaza and then, during his premiership, presenting Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas with the most far-reaching peace plan offered by any Israeli leader, which unfortunately was never accepted by the Palestinian leadership.

That episode has to this day left Olmert harboring a deep sense of missed opportunity — but not of despair, as much of his efforts now are focused on resurrecting that peace plan, albeit in much more difficult circumstances but at a time when the need for it is also more urgent and acute than ever.

Olmert makes a convincing case for ending the era of the present Israeli government, bringing down the curtain on Netanyahu’s extremely harmful time in office and, with that, hopefully ridding Israeli politics of Kahanist-racist-messianism. Yet there is also a certain historical irony in the bitter rivalry between Olmert and Netanyahu, and the reversal of their roles, that underlines their differing personalities.

Netanyahu, in his opportunism, can take any side of any argument as long as it serves him personally and politically. He first did this when he demanded that Olmert, while prime minister, take responsibility for the failures of the 2006 Lebanon War and resign. Speaking from the Knesset’s podium, in his customary pompous manner, he declared that Olmert’s decision not to resign “was like the captain of the Titanic, had he lived, being given another ship.” Today, leaving Netanyahu at the helm after the colossal failures of Oct. 7 is akin to handing him an entire fleet of ships.

Olmert did not resign in 2006, but when he was investigated for corruption it was the self-righteous Netanyahu who, in 2008, said that “a prime minister who is neck-deep in investigations has no public or moral mandate to make crucial decisions … the right thing to do is for the government to go home.” Olmert did indeed resign when he was indicted; Netanyahu still does not believe that his own moralistic stance applies to him, and neither does he have the ability to learn from his mistakes and change.

Leaving aside the personal bitterness between these two leaders, it was important that Arab News’ interview gave Olmert a platform on which to speak directly to the people of the region and send the message that what stands between ending the war, and Israel leaving Gaza and potentially embarking on a genuine peace process, is a general election.

He presented an alternative course of action to the brutal and heartless actions of the Netanyahu government against the people of Gaza when he suggested that the international community should be closely involved — with particular emphasis on regional powers — as partners, firstly in mitigating the humanitarian disaster in Gaza, and subsequently by assisting with security in the territory, the resumption of Palestinian governance without any involvement by Hamas, and then the unification of Gaza and the West Bank.

What stood out most of all in this interview was Olmert’s eternal optimism and his conviction that with vision, determination, leadership, consistency, and perseverance, the future for Israelis and Palestinians alike could be so much better than their present.

• Yossi Mekelberg is professor of international relations and an associate fellow of the MENA Program at Chatham House. X: @YMekelberg