Olmert oversimplified

Renfro’s article, however, is not so much a criticism of Olmert’s past policies and current opinions as it is a general condemnation of Israel’s part in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflation of the former prime minister’s views with Israel’s overall policy in Gaza is a disappointing oversimplification. Olmert is a key player in Israel’s opposition party, one of the most important politicians currently pushing for a two-state solution, yet he is grouped under the general heading of “Israeli leadership.” Israeli leadership is not monolithic. Renfro’s article, in its general attack on Israeli policy and rhetoric, could have been written about the current right-wing Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. The lack of discrimination between political parties works well if one is trying to generally demonize Israel. It does not, however, contribute anything constructive to a peace-seeking dialogue on the conflict.

I would like to address several of the more misleading points in Renfro’s article. The following examples epitomize the distorted nature of her criticism:

Renfro accuses Olmert of emphasizing Jewish connections to the land of Israel without mentioning Palestinian and Muslim ties. She brings up the example of the Temple Mount as a site of special religious significance to the latter. Considering that Muslims currently have freer access to the Temple Mount than Jews, despite the site’s religious significance to both, Renfro’s example is ill chosen. Olmert dwelled upon the value of Israel to Jews as a way of acknowledging how painful his proposed territory concessions are. He did not mean to delegitimize Palestinian ties.

The article levels war crime allegations for Israel’s activities in the 2008 Operation Cast Lead. The charge is serious and deserves more than the sentence Renfro expends upon it. Specifically, she writes that Israel’s use of white phosphorous in Gaza during the operation constitutes a war crime. I do not know whose opinion Renfro is quoting when she calls Israel’s actions war crimes. I do know that even the Goldstone report, a severely critical summary of Israel’s actions in Gaza (later retracted by its author), admits that the wartime use of white phosphorous is not illegal under international law. Israel’s wartime behavior merits investigation, as do the actions of every democratic nation struggling to preserve the high moral ground in a military conflict. However, in order to keep dialogue from turning into pointless, unfounded recriminations, it’s important to present sources and check claims.

Olmert is quoted as saying, “The Palestinians living in Gaza are brutal.” This quote is taken out of context and used as evidence of the racism underlying the general Israeli attitude toward the peace process. Olmert, however, was referring specifically to the brutality of the ruling parties in Gaza and the West Bank. The conflict between the two parties, Fatah and Hamas, has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of Palestinians. Renfro spins Olmert’s criticism of Hamas into an overtly racist statement about all Palestinians. She implies that Olmert believes “those who identify as Arab or Palestinian are somehow less capable of pain, suffering and greatness.” Olmert did not say and does not believe this. This is the man who in 2008 urged IDF soldiers to think of the suffering of Palestinians at checkpoints. Renfro emphasizes Israeli rhetoric dehumanizing Palestinians, when in fact her own rhetoric uses decontextualized quotes to enforce a stereotype of Israeli bigotry. “Damaging rhetoric” is presented as one of the main factors currently undermining the peace process. If Olmert is accused of damaging rhetoric for an out of context statement about Palestinian leadership institutions, what shall we say about the rhetoric on the other side? What about those who throw around accusations of racism, religious intolerance and war crimes? This is not the kind of “rhetoric” that will persuade Israel to come to the negotiating table.

Obviously, my reaction to Olmert’s speech was very different from Renfro’s. When Ehud Olmert walked on stage, I saw a high-ranking government official who was kicked out of office in 2008 on financial corruption charges. My gut response was a rush of intense admiration for the tiny Middle Eastern democracy with the balls to sack its own prime minister on tax evasion. Yes, Israel is a democracy. It is precisely because Israel is a democracy that Israeli and international discourse focus so critically upon the state’s relationship with Gaza. The issue must be addressed and resolved through negotiation, dialogue and education. Those truly committed to a peaceful resolution to the conflict will find a variety of constructive means through which they can make a difference. Refusing to clap for Ehud Olmert is not one of them.

Tehila Wenger is a freshman from Columbus, Ohio. She can be reached at twenger@princeton.edu.