Come Thursday and a key player in Middle East’s complicated and treacherous politics and diplomacy plans to quit. Not instantly, but rather take an irreversible step.

The player is Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Last Thursday, Olmert repeated, as if people have gone deaf, that he would resign as soon as his Kadima party elects a new leader. The elections are Wednesday.
In reality, Olmert will remain in office until a new government is in place. That could take weeks or months. Israeli politicians possess such realignment agility two of them can form three political parties.
Olmert is leaving because of alleged crimes long before he stumbled into premiership in January 2006 after the then prime minister Ariel Sharon suffered a massive stroke. He still refuses to die.
Israeli police seems particularly allergic to misdeed by prime ministers. In the past, police have recommended trial for four prime ministers. They did just that for Olmert eight days ago.
The recommendations involve two cases of practices politicians worldwide enjoy: receiving cash envelopes and fiddling with accounts. Expectedly, Olmert denies any wrongdoing. As political scandals, say in the United States go, the specifics of the charges against Olmert are flippant.
Most Israelis and the police don’t think so. Moreover, intrigues in Kadima can’t be ruled out as factors in the clamor for his exit. Attorney General Menachen Muzuz is yet to decide whether to prosecute. Whichever way, Olmert’s goose is overcooked.
Olmert has achievements worth cheering. Whether he can turn them into criminal and political mitigating factors is another matter. However, his achievements have a modifying effect in the region.
For example, since the Annapolis, United States, gathering last November to seek ways toward a settlement of Israelis-Palestinians conflict, Olmert has engaged President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority in serious negotiations.
Granted, there’s no deal yet. Abbas told Haaretz, an Israeli daily, that much Thursday. He added a worthy agreement before the end of the year as mandated in Annapolis is a dubious proposition. That wouldn’t please U.S. President George W. Bush, whose spinners would squeeze from a deal anything that might amount to a thin feather on his Middle East cap.
Olmert is at fault for Israel’s stinginess in easing the blockade of Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, causing misery to Palestinians.
Less heralded are Olmert’s indirect peace talks with Syria. An offshoot of this has been getting President Bashar Assad, a factor in Middle East politics, from a Western nations’ diplomatic freezer. There must be substance in the talks. Otherwise, Syria would not have continued with them after Israel destroyed its nuclear facility.
Tied to the talks, in a round about way, is Olmert’s disastrous invasion of Lebanon soon after assuming office, justified by Hezbollah’s provocation. Syria has good relations with Hezbollah.
Overall, negotiations have dominated the region more than shooting during Olmert’s tenure.
(Source: Daily Nation)