Perhaps you know that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is in Annapolis, Maryland this week for a “peace summit.” I think that all observers, liberal or conservative, would agree that Olmert is eager to give away as much as he can in order to secure peace. Whether that is a wise course or not is not the question of the day here. Instead it is something else. First, read (via Arutz-7) what Olmert said in 1994 shortly after being elected mayor of Jerusalem:
“There are those who say that there are some parts of the Land of Israel that cannot be given up, and others that can. [They say] with the same light-headedness that they are willing to give up some. They will also propose, at some time in the future, giving up the others.
“I have come here this evening with my deputies from the Jerusalem municipality to say in the name of the large majority of the residents of Jerusalem that Hevron and Jerusalem are together in the struggle for the Land of Israel. Whoever fights for the integrity of Jerusalem and our sole sovereignty there, must also fight for Jewish Hevron under Israeli sovereignty.
“On the day that we decide – [pause] – not us; someone else decides – that Hevron is not ours, he is at the same time decreeing the beginning of concessions in Jerusalem. We must not allow anyone this option. We must not allow any government this chance.
“Together, Hevron and Jerusalem, the Land of Israel. We are not fighting here for geography, though that is something very important. We are not fighting here for territory, though that is something very important. We are fighting for history, faith, tradition, and the rights of our forefathers. We are fighting for the unbreakable bonds between the Nation of Israel and the Land of Israel, and between the past and the future for ourselves and for our children who will come after us in this land…”
Olmert then predicted that the days of the government then in power, headed by the late Yitzchak Rabin, were numbered. He said that those in power “should know that the result of all their great hopes and fancy ceremonies and great fantasies, will be nothing but piles of ruins of a lost way, of blurred conceptions, and lack of thought.”
The question is this: what changed from 1994 to 2007? Is the political situation so much different now? Have we learned that the Palestinians are a reliable peace partner? Did Olmert simply mature in his thinking? Is this pure political opportunism?
Is it true now that the bond are breakable? Has the fight for history, faith, and tradition become unnecessary?
Does anyone think that the present summit will result in anything more than “piles of ruins of a lost way, of blurred conceptions, and lack of thought”?
Or to ask it another way: who do you trust – the Olmert of 1994 or the Olmert of 2007?
I have heard a term recently that may shed light on this: Jewish Guilt. It came from liberal Jews in America, fostered I think by liberal political thinking. It is the West’s fault that the Palestinians – indeed all impoverished peoples – are destitute. Therefore it is the West’s responsibility to pay some sort of restitution. In this case land. Somehow liberals have convinced (probably because Israel is sucessful) the world that Israel represents the West, so they have to pay. Just look at the slanted news coverage every night. For them, Israel is always at fault. Olmert is just the latest politician to fall to this line of thinking.
Todd, what are your thoughts on this? I read on Jpost that Abbas and Olmert vow to reach goal by 2008. Do you think this is just another series of talks and peace-making or is it for real? Do you think the Jewish leaders will really give away Jerusalem? What significance could this have in prophecy if they start dividing the land?
I don’t think that realities exist which will make this “peace attempt” any more successful than the last many. But that should not keep us from praying carefully. I do think that some Jewish leaders would love to give away parts of Jerusalem if it would give them a legacy. As for prophecy, I’m not sure.