Thanks to a pragmatic, smart approach to a beleaguered administration, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert got most of what he wanted recently when pitching his plan for an Israeli withdrawal from up to 90 percent of the West Bank.
But that success belies a Mideast diplomatic environment that is more fluid than ever, with a big wild card added to the mix: the Bush administration’s plunging domestic and international standing.
Despite conditional U.S. approval for his plan, the road to realignment won’t be smooth — for Olmert’s relatively weak government, for a besieged administration in Washington and for a divided American Jewish community.
Olmert succeeded at his first Washington summit by giving President Bush much of what he wanted, starting with a promise to keep talking to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and not foreclose the possibility of new negotiations nobody here or in Israel believes have a ghost of a chance of succeeding.
It would be a mistake to say the two allies are on the same page when it comes to Olmert’s plan — currently a “realignment” plan, formerly “convergence,” terms more neutral than “pullout” or “withdrawal.”
Washington remains uncertain about exactly what the plan may mean for future negotiations and worried about continuing resistance to unilateral Israeli action by European and other allies. The administration also understands that the devil is in details not yet revealed.
But by promising to go slow and keep talking to Abbas, Olmert eased those concerns. And the Israeli leader offered assurances that he will consult with Washington along the way, allowing the administration to play the role of protector of Palestinian interests.
That won’t satisfy skeptical European allies, but it may avert or postpone an all-out clash at a time when the administration’s international credibility is at low ebb.
The administration doesn’t have the time, the resources or the desire to pursue new Israeli-Palestinian initiatives, but it also can’t be seen as sitting idly by while Israel redraws the region’s maps to its own advantage.
Olmert, understanding the president’s problems, provided the assurances Bush needed to offer a conditional U.S. go-ahead for realignment.
But disagreements are likely as the plan moves forward. Washington will be under enormous pressure to hold fast to its insistence that only negotiations can determine final boundaries and the future of Jerusalem, issues that will inevitably thrust it back into the center of contentious negotiations.
The administration hasn’t opposed the concept of a separation barrier, but as its impact on Palestinian communities becomes clearer it will inevitably be drawn into conflicts over its route.
Olmert faces vehement opposition to the plan at home; if he responds by grabbing too much West Bank territory or scaling back the scope of the withdrawals, he could quickly find himself at odds with Washington. Terrorism remains a perpetual wild card.
Olmert’s willingness to give the administration time and the promise to consult may ease some of the immediate pressure on Washington, but it won’t change the fact that realignment will be a diplomatic and political high-wire act for both countries.
The amity of the Olmert visit also belies difficult communal conflicts ahead as the plan moves forward.
Most observers say a strong majority of American Jews will support the plan, as they did the Gaza withdrawal.
But opponents such as the Zionist Organization of America and Americans for a Safe Israel will work with vocal Christian conservatives who oppose the withdrawal on biblical grounds to limit U.S. support. At the least, they will make a lot of noise and contribute to the impression of a deeply divided Jewish community.
Some opponents already say they will work with conservative Christians to fight any proposal for new U.S. aid to help pay for the pullout, which they see as the political Achilles heel of the realignment. A big Capitol Hill fight over new money for Israel could prove enormously divisive.
Much of the Orthodox community, with deeper personal and family connections to the settlers, will oppose the pullout, creating a dilemma for Jewish umbrella groups.
Groups on the left such as Americans for Peace Now and the Israel Policy Forum support the pullout as the best available option in the bleak post-Hamas environment, but that could change if they come to believe the realignment will obstruct creation of a Palestinian state. Both will continue to press the Bush administration to remain an active participant in shaping the withdrawal in ways that will contribute to and not block future negotiations.
And the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the umbrella group widely seen as the voice of American Jewry on Israel-related issues, will be whipsawed by its mandate to support the elected government in Jerusalem on one hand, and its diverse constituency that includes some vocal opponents of the pullout on the other.
The group will ultimately stand behind the Israeli government, but there will be stress and trauma along the way.
James Besser is a Washington correspondent for Jewish newspapers across the country.