The Fine Points of Power Poker

Palestinians don’t believe Netanyahu has had a change of heart

Whoever goes up against Barack Obama these days doesn’t have it easy. That holds true in Washington and it holds true in Tel Aviv. Like wildfire, the new occupant of the White House has set about shuffling the political cards in the Middle East almost daily and is rapidly changing former U.S. Near East policies once considered to be cast in concrete. Most recently, Obama laid out the cornerstone of his own Near East agenda in Cairo, of all places, and was received like a rock star.

By the time the president was getting standing ovations from the Egyptian crowd, Israeli policy makers were already shaking in their shoes. A two state solution? Stop expanding West Bank settlements? Salaam Aleikum? Such words might be expected from Scandinavia, but from the White House? Even many Palestinians could scarcely believe their ears. By the end of his speech, it was clear to everyone that Obama was serious – and that newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a problem.

Netanyahu, who must deal with a far-right coalition government, will respond to Obama’s rhetorical broadside next Sunday. In a keenly anticipated keynote speech, he has to attempt the delicate balancing act of responding to American pressure while holding together his predominantly anti-Palestinian government.

Up to now, it hasn’t been clear just how far Netanyahu would go with his response. The public has only been told that the content of the speech was being coordinated with coalition partner Ehud Barak and Israeli President Shimon Peres. Both received advance copies of the planned speech for their examination. Could that be in preparation for comprehensive compromise?

Political commentators in Israel are already talking of a historic speech and a “second chance” for Netanyahu to alter his own course in Obama’s direction. In the Palestinian areas, on the other hand, people are listening less to the rhetoric in favor of watching developments on the ground. Right now, Palestinians tend to see their situation optimistically: head negotiator Saeb Erekat said on Thursday that since Obama’s inauguration, the Palestinians were able to “deal from a position of power for the first time.” On the same day, the prominent activist Mustafa Barghouti said he was the most optimistic he had been in decades. Admittedly, this optimism is directed exclusively toward the U.S. president. Hardly a single Palestinian believes Netanyahu’s declarations and his supposed change of heart. They haven’t forgotten their experiences during his first term in office and the collapse of the Oslo accords.

Palestinians are looking for three things from Netanyahu: public acceptance of the two-state solution, an immediate halt to the razing of Arab homes in Jerusalem, and an immediate cessation to West Bank settlement expansion as a prelude to further negotiations. It wasn’t just chance that these three demands also formed the cornerstone of Obama’s Cairo speech. The prospect of a two-state solution becomes increasingly impossible with the construction of each new Israeli residence. And considering the continuing land-grab, Palestinian voices are increasingly being heard that a one-state solution is no longer feasible. The one-state solution has become more a way of applying Palestinian pressure than it is a realistic solution. That’s why Palestinian foreign minister, Riad al-Maliki, threatened on Thursday to seek a bi-national one-state solution in which Palestinians would be the majority demographic in twenty years. In view of that, the “two states for two people” solution becomes the only realistic one.

Despite the call to stop expanding settlements, Netanyahu may agree to a temporary halt to building in his speech but he will continue beating the drum for “natural growth.” It is expected that any concessions will be dependent on a quid pro quo from the Palestinians.

That could include recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state.” However, it would preclude negotiations over the right of return for displaced Palestinians, something unacceptable to Palestinians and the Arab states right from the start.

Netanyahu is expected to invoke George W. Bush’s ‘roadmap’ as a basis for negotiations. It was supposed to culminate in the creation of a Palestinian state as early as 2005 and it had already been accepted by Israel with just fourteen exceptions.

Invoking the roadmap could be interpreted as an indirect Israeli recognition of the two-state solution and would give Netanyahu breathing space with the United States as well as negotiating space with the Palestinians. But Netanyahu and the Palestinians know only too well that the roadmap has proven overly delicate and easy to torpedo. A new revision of it, while it would buy time for Netanyahu, would only make future resolution of the problem that much more difficult.

Such tactics, while attractive to the Israelis, would be unacceptable to the Palestinians over the long run. What’s crucial for the Palestinians is the fact that Israel sees the Palestinian problem as merely a detail in their overall geostrategic power poker game. It was not by chance that Netanyahu said that his coalition choices were driven by three focal points: “Iran, Iran and Iran.” Based on this background, he may well continue to refer to Iran as a threat in his Sunday speech regardless of the outcome in the Iranian elections.

In the run up to his speech, however, Netanyahu would do well to ask himself whether he thinks Obama would be prepared to give up trying to reach agreement with the Palestinians in exchange for a confrontational approach to Iran. It would hardly serve American interests to swap peace in the Near East for an escalation of tensions in the Middle East.