The Sky is Not Falling

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that he would not be a candidate in the Kadima primary election scheduled for mid-September. It is a normal parliamentary decision and has implications primarily for the longevity of the coalition government over which he presides. After the primary, the coalition may remain in place until its scheduled 2010 demise, or it may break up sooner, leading to early elections. In the world of democratic countries, it is important, but not earth shattering.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert announced that he would not be a candidate in the Kadima primary election scheduled for mid-September. It is a normal parliamentary decision and has implications primarily for the longevity of the coalition government over which he presides. After the primary, the coalition may remain in place until its scheduled 2010 demise, or it may break up sooner, leading to early elections. In the world of democratic countries, it is important, but not earth shattering.

But you would think from reading the headlines that the chances for peace in the Middle East rest solely on the shoulders of Mr. Olmert and with his departure the world will be a more dangerous place.

The nervous headline on the Jewish Telegraphic Agency news wire read, “Olmert’s resignation plunges Israel into era of uncertainty.” The New York Times and The Washington Post echoed similar sentiments, as if the Israeli prime minister was the determinant of war and peace in the Middle East. JTA opined, “the development raised questions about how Olmert’s major diplomatic initiatives will fare during this period of political transition and beyond it – including peace tracks with the Palestinians and with Syria, and the effort to halt Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program.”

Let’s be clear, here. The Palestinian, Syrian and Iranian issues were issues before Mr. Olmert became prime minister and they will be issues after he leaves office. Whether Israel has peace with any of them has far more to do with them, their behavior and their political choices than it does with Mr. Olmert or his successor.

Peace with the Palestinians requires that they change their belief that the existence of Israel is a mistake by the international community. Peace with Syria requires that the Damascus government give up its lucrative and politically successful relationship with Iran. Neither is likely during or after Mr. Olmert’s tenure. And is there anyone who believes Mr. Olmert is working alone in “the effort halt Iran’s suspected nuclear weapons program”?

Or is the inference that only Mr. Olmert wants peace with the Palestinians or the Syrians and that another Israeli prime minister, if offered a serious peace proposal, would turn it down? Or that another Israeli prime minister would not worry as much as Mr. Olmert about Iranian nuclear weapons? Or perhaps that the Iranians really only want to surrender their nuclear weapons to Mr. Olmert and, after his departure, they won’t do it, or no other Israeli would accept the surrender?

It could get sillier, if we let it.

Only in a dictatorship does a change at the top shake the structure. The institutions of the Israeli government – the ministries, the Knesset, the judiciary – plus a free press and free people getting ready to vote presage stability in the most important areas of Israeli life. We have no doubt that if the Palestinians, or the Syrian or the Iranians come forward with viable proposals for peace and security, the next Israeli prime minister will be ready and able to say yes.