We must hope this optimistic voice from Israel’s past is also a voice of the future

Ehud Olmert’s is a voice from Israel’s past – but we have to hope that his is a voice of Israel’s future, too. The former prime minister, speaking exclusively to The Independent, is savagely critical of Benjamin Netanyahu, his successor, accusing him of pursuing “impossible” war aims in the conflict with Hamas in order to prolong his own survival in office.

Mr Olmert describes the Hamas attack on 7 October as “probably the greatest military defeat in the history of the state of Israel”, and holds Mr Netanyahu responsible for the intelligence failures that allowed it to happen.

But Mr Olmert argues – rightly, in our view – that the Hamas atrocities were different from the “similar surprise” of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, because “that attack was against soldiers, not civilians, and the outcome was very different when the army fought back quickly and aggressively”.

He takes issue with Mr Netanyahu for talking about “destroying Hamas and removing them from the face of the Earth”. This is an understandable emotional reaction for any Israeli, but a true leader needs to channel the desire for retribution into achievable ends. As Mr Olmert points out: “It is impossible to destroy a terrorist organisation hiding underground in the most crowded urban centre in the world, surrounded by civilians.”

Mr Olmert lends authority to the suspicion that Mr Netanyahu has opted for maximum war because he knows that he will cease to be prime minister the moment the fighting stops. Mr Olmert accuses his successor of throwing in his lot with extremist advocates of a “Greater Israel” in the meantime, in his “arrogant” attempt to cling to power.

“The international community needs to know the vast majority of the Israeli people are totally against this,” Mr Olmert tells Kim Sengupta, our world affairs editor. We hope that he is right about this, and that the will of the Israeli people can express itself democratically before there is too much more needless death and destruction.

So far, Mr Netanyahu has been fighting an unwinnable war that is contrary to Israel’s long-term interests – in alliance with some of the most dangerous forces in Israeli politics, including extremist settlers who want to expel Palestinians entirely from Gaza and from the occupied West Bank.

He has strained relations with the US government, Israel’s most important ally. President Biden has consistently urged Mr Netanyahu to show restraint, and has mostly been ignored. The US warned Israel that launching a military offensive in Gaza’s southern city of Rafah would be a “disaster”. More than a million Palestinians are surviving in appalling conditions in the city at the Egyptian border – and they have nowhere else to go.

Mr Olmert is no peacenik utopian. But he understands the compromises necessary in the interests of the Israeli people. As deputy prime minister, he was a vocal supporter of Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 – a pullout that was opposed by Mr Netanyahu, even then more interested in posturing than practical answers. Mr Olmert was prime minister between 2006 and 2009, when he tried to negotiate a two-state settlement with Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority.

That was the last time a Palestinian state seemed to be a realistic possibility. Mr Netanyahu has done his best since then, and especially since 7 October, to try to rule out a two-state arrangement – but he cannot say how this denial of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people can possibly be compatible with Israel’s security in the long term.

Mr Olmert ended his interview on an optimistic note, saying that there will be a new government in Israel before long, a government that can “provide the leadership of courage, including the courage to make peace”. That is a heroic enough assumption, but he went further: “I also know people on the Palestinian side who are capable, talented and can lead their people. I am sure we will get through this together. I have great hope for the future.”

We have to hope that he is right, because the alternative is too terrible for words.