In a few hours time, American President Barack Obama will welcome Israel’s Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks that may well signal the start of a series of negotiations that will result in that most elusive of political outcomes: an independent Palestinian state.
Of course, we’ve been here before. The history of the Middle East over the past twenty years is a series of stuttering half-chances for peace; the promise of a solution just round the corner inevitably giving way to mixed progress and disappointment. But this time the signs are really there that the time has come for a peaceful resolution. In Barack Obama, America has a president who seems to be committed to getting his hands dirty and to doing more than just utter platitudes about the peace process. Around the Middle East, leaders are beginning to show signs of being ready and willing to play a meaningful role in a negotiated settlement between Israel and Palestine. Moreover, there seems to be a growing sense amongst most of the parties involved that the current situation is no longer sustainable; that the region has run out of second chances and that there will never be a better time for an agreement that results in two states – the only solution where everybody wins.
But hanging over today’s meeting is a series of questions that that we don’t yet know the answer to: How willing is America to really apply pressure on Israel? Does Netanyahu believe in two states and if so how far is he willing to go? And the question that haunts everyone: how does Iran figure in all this? The answers to such questions may well determine whether today is the beginning of a new era, or just another false dawn.
Now or never
It’s a good job that the conditions are in some ways very favourable to real progress on the Palestinian issue, since it really is now or never when it comes to the chances of a two-state solution. The demographic realities of the West Bank are increasingly stark for Israel: if Palestinians don’t already outnumber Israeli Jews in “Greater Israel” (Israel + the West Bank), then they soon will do since the average Palestinian woman now has 4.6 children compared to her Israeli counterpart’s 2.6. Furthermore, an increasing numbers of Israeli Jews are choosing to leave their homeland for foreign climes.
This means that it will soon become very difficult for Israel to avoid going down the road of giving Palestinians the vote, a move which would no doubt result in the creation of a binational state. The only other option would be attempting to continue the status quo, with the Palestinians labouring under an increasingly colonial and unsustainable system. However, such a situation is essentially apartheid and would be considered unacceptable by America. And if you think that’s too strong a verdict, then listen to the words of Netanyahu’s predecessor Ehud Olmert, himself no peace-loving lefty, back in 2007:
“If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights… then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished”
It’s therefore becoming increasingly clear that if Israelis want to keep in place the dream of a Jewish state – as opposed to a binational hybrid or apartheid-style monstrosity – then they need to ensure that progress is made towards a two state solution sooner rather than later.
The mysterious Mr. Netanyahu
Perhaps the key question that will be at the forefront of everyone’s minds when Obama and Netanyahu meet later today is how likely, if at all, it is that Israel’s Prime Minister will support some kind of two-state solution. The omens don’t look too good. Netanyahu campaigned on a platform of opposition to the two-state solution, favouring instead something he calls “economic peace” – essentially, sustaining the status quo but increasing the economic and structural freedom of the Palestinians, an outcome which fits nicely into the “apartheid” option described above. Since coming to power he hasn’t exactly moderated his stance. For a start, he hasn’t once mentioned the prospect of an independent Palestinian state. The focus of his administration can be summed up by the words of his interior minister last month, who insisted: “the preferable course of diplomatic action at this time is two economies for two peoples and not two states for two peoples.”
But this is where it gets a bit confusing, since there are some who assert that Netanyahu, despite his hard line credentials, is more open to negotiation than most people realise and is merely playing hardball so as to avoid conceding too much too early. For evidence of this, the example of Hebron is often used – the large West Bank town from which Netanhyahu, in his last stint as Prime Minister in the late 90s, withdrew Israel’s presence. Others point to the inherent vagueness in Netanyahu’s talk of economic peace. Tony Blair, (pictured, right) in his role as Middle East Special Envoy was rather mysterious on this front when intervied by Time magazine last month:
There are one or two things that [Netanyahu's] term “economic peace” can mean. One, that economic development is a substitute for state, and that’s obviously not acceptable. I personally think he wants the second, to build the [Palestinian] state from the bottom up. I understand and buy into that. It’s important for the Israeli government to come out and say we want a two-state solution, but the circumstances have got to be right
Moreover, recent events suggest Netanyahu appears to be ready to provide Obama with the terms by which he would be willing to conduct negotiations with the Palestinians towards some form of a two-state solution. Indeed, he’s apparently come up with a laundry list of demands in return for Israel’s commitment towards two states. How much of this is simply diversionary tactics on the part of an unwilling Netanyahu, however, is another question entirely.
The Art of Feet-Dragging
An examination of the red lines that Netanyahu appears to have drawn prior to his meeting with Obama leads inevitably to the suspicion that they have been carefully crafted in order to give him, at the very least, a little more time before he has to commit Israel to making any real sacrifices. First, Netanayhu wants the Palestinians to officially recognise Israel as the sovereign state of the Jewish People in perpetuity. If you’re wondering what could be so problematic about this, then the answer is that the Palestinians already recognises the state of Israel and have done so ever since the 1993 Oslo Accord. Netanyahu’s demand, therefore, is simply an unrealistically-framed step beyond this; he must know- and may well be counting on – the fact that, as a matter of pride, the Palestinians will never agree to recognising Israel in such a manner. Indeed, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas said recently in response to this: “We say that Israel is a state and the Israelis have the right to call themselves whatever they wish. But I don’t accept this (Netanyahu’s demand).”
Next, Netanyahu wants Israel to be able to maintain a certain “limitation of sovereignty” over any Palestinian state. This includes prohibiting it from maintaining an army or forging military agreements or alliances and Israel continuing to monitor its external borders, airspace and electromagnetic spectrum. This would be quite a restriction on the independence of a Palestinian state – the kind of thing which makes the word “independent” seem a little out of place. Then there’s Netanyahu’s stance on Iran: he has made it very clear that he sees Israel’s commitment to two states as part of a deal in which America does something about the nuclear threat to Israel coming from Tehran, a stance which, as we will see later, is potentially problematic.
Netanyahu has also come out against giving the Golan Heights back to Syria; a harsh stance given that the return of the Heights – taken in the 1967 war – has often been thought of as the first piece of land that Israel might give up in a bona fide peace process. Certainly, stubbornness on this issue would remove Syria as a potential regional ally for the peace process, so whether by design or not this is a red line that stings. Finally, Netanyahu will not allow Jerusalem to be divided into two separate capitals. Unfortunately this is seen as a necessity by many of Israel’s neighbours and is enshrined in the Arab League’s 2002 peace initiative, a fairly reasonable road map to a two state solution that has been endorsed by Obama himself.
Given this (exhaustingly) lengthy list of pre-conditions, it’s hard not to concur with Harvard professor of International Relations Stephen Walt :
Netanyahu clearly wants to avoid an open rift with the Obama administration, which has forcefully reiterated its commitment to negotiating a two-state solution. To do that, he has to pay lip service to the peace process. But because Netanyahu has long opposed the creation of a viable Palestinian state and instead wants to extend Israel’s control of the West Bank, he has to lay out a set of demands that will endlessly delay the process and make it hard for Obama to put meaningful pressure on him
Under Pressure
Despite Netanyahu’s seeming intransigence, there is a still a tremendous amount of hope and expectation surrounding today’s meeting and the events that will follow it. This is largely thanks to the Obama administration’s increasing determination to forcefully pursue a two-state solution – even if it involves having to crack down on America’s greatest ally Israel. Whereas past administrations – most notably George W. Bush’s – have been content to let Israel more or less do what it wants, Obama’s team have been showing promising signs of late that they will no longer tolerate Israel’s leaders running rings around Washington.
Obama has already announced that in his eyes, nothing less than a two-state solution will suffice – according to Tony Blair, the creation of an independent Palestinian state is considered a US national security interest in the President’s eyes. But it’s not just Obama. At the recent summit of AIPAC – the American pro-Israel lobby largely used to having US politicians bend over backwards to please it - Vice-President Joe Biden left the audience under no illusion that the administration would support the status quo, insisting that Israel must “work toward a two-state solution, not build settlements, dismantle outposts and allow Palestinians access to freedom of movement.” He even prefaced his remarks by saying “You won’t like this…”
Then there’s Secretary of State Hilary Clinton (pictured above, with Netanyahu). Traditionally a staunch ally of Israel, she has recently taken a much stricter approach. Her recent remarks have been particularly pointed, condemning the expansion of West Bank settlements and telling Netanyahu to “get off the sidelines”. When she visited the West Bank recently, she was reported to have been shocked by the third-world conditions and troubled by the humiliation around her. It’s perhaps no surprise that the veteran Israeli journalist Eitan Haber recently warned Netanyahu, “prepare yourself for change … This is not the America you used to know.”
A great indicator of how seriously the Obama administration is taking the issue is their rumoured willingness to make progress in America’s relations with Hamas, the militant Islamists who control the Gaza strip. Previously the US’s stance has been that Hamas, despite being democratically elected, are terrorists. And America doesn’t negotiate with terrorists (except when they do). But in light of the fact that Hamas may be ready to form a unity government with the moderate Palestinian Authority that controls the West Bank, the Obama administration – to Israel’s great consternation – are showing signs of being willing to negotiate with a unity government that includes Hamas and are even willing to fund it.
However one question remains: if Netanyahu proves to be as slippery and as uncompromising as many suspect he will, will Obama and his administration have the strength to increase the pressure on Israel? In other words, are they prepared to actually penalise Israel for non-compliance in the negotiations ahead? There are certainly many options available to the President. He could, for example, reduce the voluminous amount of aid America gives to Israel each year. Whether he is prepared to go to these lengths, however, is another question entirely but it could be an interesting test of how strong America’s new backbone really is.
Iran or Bust
One thing is certain about today’s meeting: Obama won’t be able to treat Iran as the (nuclear) elephant in the room. For better or worse, Netanyahu considers dealing with the threat of a nuclear Iran to be of greater importance to Israel than making peace with the Palestinians. Indeed, one of the troubling things about Israel’s perception of Iran is that the largely rational, cautious and conservative clerics who control the country are seen by Israel as raving nutters itching to blow them all to kingdom come (and presumably all the Muslim holy sites of Jerusalem as well). But whatever the merits of Israel’s fears, it’s looking likely that dealing with the threat of Iran will go hand in hand with forging a two-state solution. The White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has said that the administration plans to use the promise of progress on Iran as a way to ensure Israel’s co-operation, although since, as I discussed earlier, Netanyahu is setting a commitment to dealing with Iran as a precondition to an eventual peace deal, it’s not entirely certain whether it’s Israel or America who is dangling the carrot.
In any event, it may be a grave error on the part of America to tie the fate of the two-state solution to the resolution of the Iran problem. This is because, as Stephen Walt has argued, if negotiations with Iran should flounder – and goodness knows they might – then the hopes of an independent Palestinian state would flounder with them. Furthermore, treating a deal with Iran as a pre-condition to progress with Israel doesn’t really make sense. A two-state solution on its own would take away much of Iran’s regional power and thus make a deal with America easier to come by. Equally, resetting America’s relationship with Iran – and thus reducing its baleful influence on the Middle East – would make it that much easier to pursue peace in Palestine. Either way you put it, therefore, it doesn’t make sense to use Iran as a bargaining chip for a palestinian peace process, or vice versa, since indendently pursuing one will always lead to the other.
Moreover, making a deal with Iran a pre-condition to progress with Palestine would put the pressure on Obama to get results from Tehran and may therefore lead to a continuation of the failed, patronising “carrot and stick” approach that has dominated American/Iranian relations over the last few years. This would be a great mistake because, as many experts are now arguing, the best path for dealing with Iran is to tackle all the issues between Tehran and Washington at once via a groundbreaking, brave “Grand Bargain”. The idea behind this approach is that, in return for Iran agreeing to let the foreign community supervise their nuclear process and reducing its malign influence on the Palestinian and Iraq conflicts, America agrees to stop treating Iran as a security threat and deal with as an ally with all the benefits that entails – including the cessation of current sanctions. Tying Iran to Palestine could jeopardise the hopes for such a grand bargain, however unlikely they may be.
So to summarise: tying Iran to the Palestinian conflict as a deal breaker could either ruin chances of a rapprochement with Tehran or stop the peace process in its tracks – or both! Will the Iran issue be the downfall of the two-state solution? Let’s hope not…
The meeting of the century
What, then, can we expect – and hope for – from today’s meeting in the Oval Office of the White House? Well, for a start it would be nice to hear Netanyahu actually say the words “two state solution” or “independent Palestinian state” in a positive manner. A commitment to a two-state solution in no uncertain terms would also be welcome, as would a reaffirmation by Obama of America’s new, no-nonsense attitude to Israel. It’s even possible that Obama might choose today to unveil the framework for the entire peace process, though this is unlikely at best.
What we might see, however, are commitments to take the actions that need to be done before any process begins in earnest.For example, if Obama is planning to agree some form of policy with Netanyahu, then he may well press for a settlement freeze. He would certainly be wise to do so. The continuing expansion of Israel’s settlements in the West Bank – a process that has been going on for years and has not even halted for past negotiations with the Palestinians – is perhaps the main impediment to any peace process. The harm it causes cannot be understated. It undermines the credibility of moderate Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, it exacerbates Palestinian hatred for Israel and every time a new Israeli building is built the possibility of eventually withdrawing from the West Bank is made that much more difficult. The Palestinian conflict is a battle over a small slice of land. At the very least, Israel should be making the commitment not to take any more of it.
Of course, today’s discussions are only the start of a lengthy diplomatic process. In the weeks to come, Obama will meet with King Abdullah of Jordan and Egypt’s president Hosni Mubarak. Then, on June 4th, he will dramatically unveil his Middle East “new deal” in a speech in Cairo – an event that has “history-making” written all over it. But though today is just the beginning, it’s nonetheless true that both parties need to make a flying start.
It has been reported that Obama’s been furiously reading up on all aspects of the Palestinian quagmire. If so, then he will know that time has run out on the issue: there are no more second chances. When it comes to the Middle East, he will either be remembered as the President who solved the most intractable conflict of the past 100 years, or else as the guy who was in charge when the dream of a Jewish state faded to black. Let’s hope he’s up for the challenge…
May 24th, 2009 at 09:41
Great article Eddy. Sadly, having heard the noises that emerged from the talks last week I am feeling considerably less then optimistic about the whole situation. Netanyahu did not mention the two-state solution or any equivalent phrase, as you’d hoped he would.
It seems to me that there is only so much Obama can do to rectify this ongoing tragedy and without cooperation from the more relevant local powers there can be no progress towards the necessary two-state solution. I see no indication of such intentions and therefore the situation appears to be as hopeless as ever.
I hope that you have read between the lines differently and can convince me of a more positive outlook?
May 26th, 2009 at 12:08
yeah, you’re not wrong to say the situation still looks pretty hopeless. netanyahu demonstrated pretty clearly in that meeting that he’s not about to concede anything without any real pressure.
the best i can do in terms of a positive outlook is to point out that Obama does have the power to influence israel into starting a process, but like I said in the post it depends on how much pressure he is willing to put on netanyahu’s administration – is he willing to get tough on them? (some of the options he has are listed here:
http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/04/10/can_the_united_states_put_pressure_on_israel_a_users_guide )
but yeah, at the moment thinks not looking good. obama’s big speech on june 4th might change that though…