photo credit: premasagar

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.”

photo credit: World Economic Forum

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.

photo credit: U.S. Department of State

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.

photo credit: iVoryTowerz

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.

photo credit: Just a guy who likes to take pictures

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…

photo credit: U.S. Department of State

Israel’s next Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu – leader of the right-wing Likud party and staunch opposer of the two-state solution – has just about finished assembling his government. His coalition now includes the right-wing racist Avigdor Lieberman and Ehud Barak, leader of the centre-left Labour party – a combination that must surely make Netanyahu favourite for this year’s “Weirdest Team-up” award.

Lieberman, leader of the extreme right-wing nationalist party “Israel is our home”, has been appointed Foreign Minister.  Foreign minister. This is a man who campaigned on a platform of forcing Israeli Arabs to sign loyalty oaths; a man so opposed to any concessions to Palestinians that in 2003 he reacted to a commitment made by Ariel Sharon to give amnesty to approximately 350 Palestinian prisoners by opining that  “It would be better to drown these prisoners in the Dead Sea if possible, since that’s the lowest point in the world”. In January 2009, during Israel’s military operation in Gaza, Lieberman argued that Israel “must continue to fight Hamas just like the United States did with the Japanese in World War II. Then, too, the occupation of the country was unnecessary”… Yes, that’s right. He’s referring to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Oh, and he’s also under investigation for corruption and has been convicted of beating up a twelve year old boy. Even “The New Republic” editor Marty Peretz – a vocal member of the Pro-Israel lobby – has  denounced Lieberman, calling his party a “neo-fascist” outfit and the man himself a “certified criminal” who is “the Israeli equivalent of Jorg Haider of Austria and Jean-Marie LePen”.

The idea of Lieberman being the face of Israel’s diplomacy is the kind of thing that makes you wonder whether the Joker from Batman is controlling Israel’s foreign policy. This guy is going to negotiate peace with the Arab governments of the middle east? You’re kidding, right? I can’t wait to see what kind of reception he gets in Europe!

What about yesterday’s entry of the centre-left Labour party into the new government, including the appointment of its leader Ehud Barak (pictured, with Hillary Clinton) as Defence Minister? Labour was split right down the middle on whether this is a good idea – seven of its 13 MPs opposed joining Netanyahu’s coalition and the vote of  Labour’s central committee was a fairly narrow victory for its leader: 680-570. Barak claimed that they would not serve as anyone’s fig-leaf and they would “ensure there will not be a narrow right-wing government, but a real government that looks after the State of Israel”. However opponents of the coalition within Labour felt that this was simply an unprincipled grab for power on Barak’s behalf; a case of being “bought off with portfolios and empty promises”.

Regardless of whether this was a case of Barak putting ambition before principle or trying to make the best of a bad situation, how does the inclusion of a centre-left party into Netanyahu’s coalition affect the chances of progress for the peace process? My initial thoughts are that it won’t make a massive difference. Netanyahu and his party are  staunchly opposed to the two-state solution. Barak claimed to have sought an agreement from Netanyahu to honour Israel’s commitment to Palestinian statehood, but if we’ve learnt anything over the last ten years it’s that when it comes to the peace process, words are cheap. After all, Netanyahu has a real incentive to say anything to ensure Labour are a part of his coalition as this is his only chance to try and assuage American fears about his right-wing government. We can but hope that the US aren’t so gullible.

In particular, no-one should be fooled by Netanyahu’s remarks yesterday, which were meant to reassure those alarmed by his right-wing government-to-be . Read his words carefully, however, and you’ll notice no mention of anything approaching a commitment to a two-state solution. Indeed, his words were completely consistent with his vision for Palestine, which is essentially apartheid:  a scenario whereby Israel could retain control of the West Bank but allow the Palestinians limited autonomy in a set of disconnected enclaves, while it controlled access in and out, their water supplies, and the airspace above them.

Having said that, though I can’t see Barak being able to force a two-state process on an unwilling Netanyahu, it’s conceivable that he could act as a restraint on the Prime Minister- preventing further illegal settlement expansion, for example. With Labour in the government it’s also conceivable that progress could be made on returning the Golan Heights to Syria, especially given recent signs that Syria are coming in from the cold, diplomatically speaking.  Of course, this isn’t nearly enough: as I documented in detail in my post What happens if the two-state solution’s off the table? it’s now or never for chances of a two-state solution -  unless progress is made soon, we could well be faced with the options of either Netanyahu’s apartheid vision – which America would never accept – or the scenario of giving Palestinians the vote, which would mean the end of Israel as we know it.

Finally, I should add that the moderate party Kadima are headed into opposition, having resisted Netanyahu’s advances – Kadima head Tzipi Livni was discouraged by his unwillingness to commit to peace talks with the Palestinian leadership. At this rate, Kadima’s going to have to be the greatest opposition Israel’s ever seen.

The coalition games are almost over – soon it will be time to govern. For Palestine and the international community, this is not exactly something to look forward to: a Prime Minister with an alarmingly retrograde stance on the peace process who’s torn between, on the one hand, a crazy neo-fascist racist outfit and on the other a left-wing party who he disagrees with on almost every matter of importance. Good luck with that…

photo credit: premasaga

The first alternative is fairly obvious, since it is what new Israel Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu advocated for in his election campaign. As Harvard Professor of International Relations Stephen Walt puts it in his must-read post “What do we do if the two-state solution collapses?”: “Israel could retain control of the West Bank but allow the Palestinians limited autonomy in a set of disconnected enclaves, while it controlled access in and out, their water supplies, and the airspace above them.” This solution, as the cunning reader will have guessed, does not in fact give the Palestinians any right over their land, or, indeed, any de facto rights at all. It is, in effect, apartheid; and if you think that’s overstating it then may I present to you the words of that notorious Israel critic the, er, outgoing Israel Prime Minister Ehud Olmert:

If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished.

If leading Israeli politicians are warning of the dangers of such a course, then you can be sure that America won’t allow it – the international verdict on such a strategy is already in and The United States can’t be seen to be supporting apartheid, pro-Israel lobby or no pro-Israel lobby. Actually, even they would be against this – here’s Olmert again on that subject:

The Jewish organizations, which were our power base in America, will be the first to come out against us,” Olmert said, “because they will say they cannot support a state that does not support democracy and equal voting rights for all its residents.”

So the “apartheid option” is off the table, right? The Centre for American Progress’s Matthew Yglesias isn’t so sure:

I don’t think it would be at all implausible for the Israeli government to continue to assert that military control over Israel’s Palestinian population is necessary for Israeli safety. It’s worth recalling that for all the shock and outrage currently associated with the observation that Israel is moving toward permanent entrenchment of an apartheid social and political regime in the West Bank, that the United States stood by apartheid South Africa for quite a long time

Is Yglesias right? Perhaps. But on the assumption that we can have – or more appropriately, must have – more faith in an Obama administration, we now turn to another alternative as explained by Walt in his aforementioned article:

The Israeli government could maintain its physical control over “greater Israel” and grant the Palestinians full democratic rights within this territory. This option has been proposed by a handful of Israeli Jews and a growing number of Palestinians. But there are formidable objections to this outcome: It would mean abandoning the Zionist dream of an independent Jewish state, and binational states of this sort do not have an encouraging track record, especially when the two parties have waged a bitter conflict across several generations. This is why I prefer the two-state alternative.

You’re not the only one. Though this outcome would have a sort of bittersweet irony to it – after decades of violent struggle, peace comes through the ballot box – it’s got “last resort” written all over it. Israel would have its dream of an independent Jewish state destroyed. Two populaces with a history of antagonism towards each other that spans over sixty years would find themselves joined together in one binational state. Can you see this ending well?

Yet this solution is beginning to take on the characteristic of a certain cynical inevitability. Indeed, large numbers of Palestinians are reportedly ready to hold back from any advance in the peace process because they know that if they simply wait, then the pressure on Israel will be such that they have no choice but to grant them the vote. And who can blame them? Why make concessions when you can just wait it out until you get what you want with no blood spilled? But make no mistake, the two-state solution is still the best option: it’s the only one left where everybody wins. (Or, if you prefer, everybody loses equally.) But as I hope I’ve made clear, it’s not going to happen unless the United States can somehow overcome, most likely through sheer will, the extreme obstacles of Netanyahu and the realities of the Israeli settlements.

This has been a pretty gloomy analysis of the peace process (take your head out of the oven, I say!) but then there’s always been a thin line between pessimism and realism. Those who prefer to take their hard-boiled truths with a little more, er, optimism sauce will no doubt take comfort from the fact that the U.S. is in a position to make real progress for the first time in eight years – due in no small degree to Obama’s appointment of Northern Ireland peace process superstar George Mitchell as special envoy to the Middle East. Me, I’m a little more comfortable in worst-case scenario territory. In any event, I think  everyone can agree that it’s absolutely vital that the US is prepared for the possibility of the collapse of the two-state solution and ready to steer the main parties towards the next best scenario, should the need arise. Ultimately, though, I only know one thing for sure: the only real viable path to peace hangs in the balance and you’d have to be a braver man than me to bet on its fate.

photo credit: josef.stuefer

In my last post “Netanyahu will be Prime Minister: What now for Israel?” I discussed the decision by Israel President Shimon Peres to let right-winger Binyamin Netanyahu form Israel’s new government, but left open the crucial question of whether, following Netanyahu’s likely formation of an exclusively right-wing coalition, the two-state solution is off the table – and what happens if it is. (for a primer on what the two-state solution actually is, check out the Wikipedia entry)

Questions on the future of Israel and Palestine don’t come much bigger than this. Ever since Camp David in 2000, the two state solution has been appreciated by all sides as the eventual desired outcome. Back in 2002 The Arab League endorsed Saudi Arabia’s Arab Peace Initiative which was, essentially, a two-state solution. Successive Israel Prime Ministers Barak, Sharon and Olmert have all accepted that it must be the goal to work towards. But with Netanyahu’s victory, it might be time to start wondering whether it’s simply no longer an option. Whether you’re an optimist, a pessimist or a realist, it’s not the kind of question that the main players in the peace process can ignore for long, unless they want to find themselves up the proverbial creek without a paddle, while facing a raging whirlpool and a bunch of hungry alligators. You get my point.

Crucial to this question, then, is the need to be realistic – perhaps brutally so. Let’s start with the man who will soon be Israel’s PM. Netanyahu does not favour the two state solution; indeed as far as anyone can tell he does not favour giving Palestinians any rights at all. Not only is he against the withdrawal of Israeli settlements but he also favours increasing their number. It is true that some hope may lie with his alleged desire for the international community – especially the U.S. – to view him as more than an extremist, as well as the promise of the Obama administration to re-engage with the peace process, but it is hard to imagine anything more than a handful of weak concessions coming from a Netanyahu administration never mind an entire peace process. Put it this way: Vin Diesel will win an oscar before Palestinians have a state under Netanyahu. (And yes, you can file that statement under “hoping to be proved wrong”, as well as “hoping Vin Diesel doesn’t read politics blogs”.)

The hopes for the two-state solution diminish even further when you combine Netanyahu’s intransigence on the issue with the practical realities involved in the scale of Israeli settlements. Stephen Walt, Professor of International Relations at Harvard and self-described realist, makes this point in a must-read article on the fate of the two-state solution:

There are now about 290,000 settlers living in the West Bank. There are another 185,000 settlers in East Jerusalem. Most of the settlers are subsidized directly or indirectly by the Israeli government. It is increasingly hard to imagine Israel evicting nearly half a million people (about 7 percent of its population) from their homes.

In reply to Walt, Jonathan Chait of the New Republic had this to say:

… settlements are reversible. To make peace with Egypt, Israel abandoned settlements in the Sinai peninsula, forcibly uprooting residents there. It did the same when withdrawing from Gaza recently. It was prepared to do the same in the West Bank in 2000 and 2001, though it never had to follow through because negotiations collapsed… the settlements are an obstacle, but not the primary obstacle.

But as The American Prospect’s Ezra Klein has made clear, the West Bank is not Gaza:

I’m more skeptical than he (Chait) is: The fight to uproot the settles in Gaza was tremendous. But the numbers were vanishingly small: 8,500 Jewish settlers made their home in Gaza. And most of them got compensation packages in the hundreds of thousands. The political power and physical presence of 290,000 settlers in the West Bank are of another order of magnitude. I’m not sure the settlements can be uprooted and, more problematically, the Palestinians are quite sure they won’t be uprooted, and that Israel’s promises of a contiguous state are hollow. The rapid growth of the settlements on a parallel track to the peace process was an important part of Arafat’s mistrust of Barak.

The crucial point in all of this is that the Israeli settlements are a huge issue. The kind of idea that Jonathan Chait suggested in his quote above – that settlements are not the primary obstacle – is debatable to say the least.  Their constant expansion in the past decade – whether under a moderate, right-wing or left-wing Israeli government – is arguably, in fact, the main obstacle to the peace process. Palestinians become less inclined to negotiate with the Israelis every time settlements expand, as with settlements  comes not just a general feeling of intrusion on what they consider to be their land, but also very real socio-economic problems. It’s hard, therefore, to understate the damage caused in the past to any hopes of a peaceful solution by Israel’s habit of negotiating a deal with one hand while continuing to expand settlements with the other.

What’s even more significant is that the US, despite their official stance of opposition to settlement expansion, has stood idly by while successive Israeli governments step it up. Indeed, it is the US funding of Israel that helps make these settlements possible (not directly, but money is fungible… so aid to Israel frees up money for settlement expansion) The importance of this point cannot be overstated, because it means that if Obama is going to somehow keep a peace process going despite the twin obstacles of Netanyahu and the huge numbers of West Bank settlements, then he’s going to have to have to do what America has been too scared to do so far : start getting serious about the chronic settlement growth of Israel.

But whether America steps up to the plate or not, odds are at this point that real progress towards two states is looking a lot less likely than it did a year ago. Therefore, in part two I’ll turn to the possible alternatives to the two-state solution… be warned, they’re not pretty.

photo credit: ZoomGalaxy

The big news today is that Israel’s President Shimon Peres has selected Binyamin Netanyahu – leader of the right-wing Likud Party – to form the next government. This announcement comes two weeks after the results of the Israel elections, where the moderate Kadima party, headed by Tzipi Livni, beat Likud by one seat. Despite Livni’s victory, however, it was obvious from the start that Netanyahu (pictured, on the left) would likely be the one chosen to form a government, as he is able to scrape together a bigger coalition of right-wing parties than Livni can of left-wing ones. This outcome became near inevitable yesterday when extreme right-wing leader Avigdor Lieberman -whose party “Israel is our home” came a decent third place in the elections – fulfilled his kingmaker role by vowing to support Netanyahu. Following Peres’s decision today, we now know for certain that  Netanyahu will be the next Prime Minister of Israel.  (For more on the election results and  the coalition alternatives, see my post Israel Election Results: Your guess is as good as mine)

The key question now is what the government he chooses to form will look like. Netanyahu has already reached out to  Livni, as well as Ehud Barak of the left wing Labour Party, no doubt realising that a fringe right-wing coaltion government will be unlikely to accomplish much and receive little support from the U.S. – at least not from the new Obama administration. Indeed, he is reportedly ready to offer Livni the job of  foreign minister and deputy prime minister, as well as the role of defense secretary to her deputy Shaul Mofaz. However, both Livni and Ehud Barak have signalled that they would rather stay in opposition than form a government with Netanyahu – Livni unwilling to be a “figleaf” for a right-wing administration- and thus a unity government must be considered the less likely option.

If Netanyahu does end up having to form a right-wing government, then the prospects for the two-state solution – and thus a real peace process – could be disastrous. In my next post I will explore why the two-state solution would be off the table and, more importantly, what happens if it is. (Hint: nothing good)

photo credit: Tzipi Livni Gallery ציפי לבני גלריית

The first observation to make is that, even by the standards of most complicated proportional representation systems, Israel would probably have been better off just drawing lots. The second is that you might well expect Livni’s chances of helming any coalition to be very strong, given her victory, however narrow. But you’d be wrong. What happens next is that President  Shimon Peres will meet with all the party heads and choose someone to come up with a coalition – that someone being chosen not for their party’s numerical lead but for the likelihood of them being able to put together a majority alliance. Given the gains for the right-wing parties, that someone could just as easily be Netanyahu as Livni- which as we shall see is not a pleasant thought.

There are, in fact, a bewildering number of options in store for Israel, as it begins to play the “Coalition Game” (hint: in this game there is no winner). Here are some of the possible outcomes:

- Livni forms a coalition with her party Kadima and the remaining left-wing/centrist parties. This is sadly unlikely, given that the right wing parties overall appear to have gained the most seats.

- Netanyahu forms a centrist coalition with his own Likkud and Kadima amongst others. This is possible, given that he may want to unite everyone rather than form an ultra right-wing coalition. The ‘may’ in that sentence is heavy on the skepticism.

- Livni forms a “unity” coalition of Kadima, Likkud and Labour amongst others, hopefully leaving out the uber-uber-right winger Lieberman. This is perhaps the best of the realistic outcomes as it puts Livni in the driving seat but allows Netanyahu a place at the table.

- Netanyahu forms a right-wing coalition of Likkud, Lieberman (in his King-maker role) and other right-wing parties . This is the nightmare scenario and, given the electoral advantage of the combined right-wing parties, depressingly plausible

Though nothing is certain when you play the Coalition Game, there are nevertheless real dangers to Netanhyanu gaining the upper hand over Livni.

Livni is hardly anything other than conservative in her views on Palestine, though by Israel standards she comes out as a moderate. She opposes the division of Jerusalem, which both sides claim as their capital. She also appears to believe in “maintaining maximum settlers” and it would therefore appear that  in any peace deal she wants major changes to the pre-1967 boundary to incorporate settlement blocs. But at least she believes in a peace deal, that is she agrees with the two state, negotiated approach and would presumably follow the Annapolis process started in 2007 by George Bush. Livni is conservative, but a viable peace process could well go through her.

Netanyahu is just… very right wing. He does not believe any settlements should be evacuated, and would probably try to expand, not restrict,  settlements in the West Bank. He opposes unilaterally handing occupied land back, even to the extent of travelling to the Golan Heights – taken from Syria in the 1967 war and the most likely contender in any land concessions – and planting a tree there in a not-so-subtle statement of his right-wing credentials . He is, in short, opposed to any concessions to the Palestinians and certainly opposed to the two-state peace process, promising instead to deliver an “economic peace”, whatever that means.

Some have argued that a peace process could go through Netanyahu, too. He wants to show the world he is not a monster, they say. He will have to work with his coalition partners, some of whom will be centrist or left wing. He will not want to be alienated from the US because of his forming an ultra- right-wing coalition. This may well be true, but it is worth remembering that this is the guy who, back in the mid 90s, not only rejected the Oslo peace accords with the Palestinians but dismissed the then foreign minister, Shimon Peres, as “worse than Chamberlain” for signing the deal.

I suspect, therefore, that the road to peace in the Middle East does not in the slightest bit go through Netanyahu and Obama’s efforts on the matter will be for nought if the hardliner takes over. I would love to be wrong on this, but not as much as I would love for Livni, not Bibi, to take the helm. May the coalition games commence!