Benjamin Netanyahu had avoided the words “Palestinian state” like Satan avoids holy water. Under massive U.S. government pressure, however, the leader of the right-wing Likud Party did the unthinkable: he gave his blessing to the creation of a de-militarized Palestinian state, albeit under the condition that Israel be granted certain international guarantees. Another prerequisite would be that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state.
“If these conditions are met,” Netanyahu said in his speech at Tel Aviv’s Bar Ilan University, “then we are ready to agree to a Palestinian state bordering Israel.”
With that, Netanyahu met the Obama administration half way on the Middle East Road Map for peace, including provisions for a two state solution, the basis of impending peace talks. On the other hand, the Israeli leader refused to make any compromises concerning Jerusalem.
Netanyahu also made clear he expects Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank to be permitted on the basis of “natural growth” – on land that the Palestinians need for their own state. “The settlers aren’t enemies of peace, they’re Zionists,” Netanyahu declared, adding that no new settlements would be planned.
The Israeli press called his response to Obama’s appearance in Cairo a big test, perhaps even the most important speech of his life. In actuality, Netanyahu maneuvered on mainly secure right-wing ideological terrain even if he acknowledged “Obama’s vision of a regional peace.”
By the same token, he called upon the Palestinian leadership to engage in negotiations “here and now.” He said, “I am willing to meet with you any time, any place . . . in Damascus, Riyadh, Beirut and in Jerusalem.” The Prime Minister added, “I don’t want war.”
Netanyahu maintained that the root of the conflict was not the Israeli occupation. Every withdrawal, he said, whether from Gaza or South Lebanon was met with rocket bombardments of Israeli territory. He said it wasn’t Israel’s intention to rule over the Palestinian people but, he added, neither were they prepared to allow “another Hamastan” in the West Bank.
As tempting as peace may be, he said, they had to remain realistic. “The Palestinians have demands that we cannot meet.” Concerning Palestinian refugees Netanyahu said, “. . . justice and logic demand that the Palestinian refugee problem be solved outside Israel’s borders.” Not even moderate Palestinians were prepared to recognize the rights of the Jewish people, he added to thunderous applause.
He didn’t mention the fact that the PLO had recognized Israel in several different agreements. Instead, he spoke of his concept of an economic peace that would strengthen moderates and weaken extremists. It was not, he said, “a substitute for a political peace, but an important element to achieving it.” The entire Arab world could profit by economic cooperation with Israel and its modern research.
Netanyahu made concrete proposals for improving the living conditions for the Palestinians, but the intention to do away with Israeli checkpoints wasn’t sufficient for President Mahmoud Abbas, who coupled peace negotiations with an end to settlement construction and acceptance of the two-state solution.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, currently traveling in the Near East, said that the United States will not retreat on these two central points, but added that Netanyahu’s speech constituted a starting point for further talks. Exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal recently remarked that Hamas would not be opposed to a peace based on the 1967 borders, but it is probably still too early for such hopes
Negative reactions quickly rose on both sides of the debate.
The Palestinian rejection came swiftly and was as expected. “Netanyahu will have to wait 1,000 years for someone to agree to talk to him,” said chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat. The radical Islamic Hamas party called the speech a slap in the face to everyone who had hoped for negotiations with Israel. Hamas added that resistance, a euphemism for force and terror, would ultimately liberate the nation. It’s still unclear whether Netanyahu’s appeal to the Palestinian leadership would lead to an immediate resumption of unconditional peace negotiations that might continue in later stages of the process.
Israeli settlers also sharply criticized Netanyahu’s suggestion for a de-militarized Palestinian state adjacent to Israel.
Settlement Mayor Pinchas Wallerstein compared such a state to a baby beast of prey: “When it’s still young, it’s sweet and cuddly but everyone knows it will grow up to be a predator.” A press release from the settlement council stated that a Palestinian state would inevitably arm itself and threaten Israel’s existence.
Ultra-right Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman said that Netanyahu’s speech had opened the door to the immediate resumption of peace negotiations. Israeli President Shimon Peres referred to the speech as “honest and courageous” and one that would lead to stabilization in the region. It offered, he said, the opportunity for direct negotiations leading to a regional peace pact as well as a bilateral agreement between Israelis and Palestinians.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.