President Barack Obama stated, finally and unambiguously, that “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Until now, U.S. diplomats talked about “the aspirations” to such borders. The matter is of the utmost importance now that Fatah, which controls the Palestinian National Authority (PNA), and Hamas, which governs the Gaza Strip, have reached a certain level of understanding.
Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, rejected the proposal as “indefensible.” The leader is against the creation of a sovereign, viable Palestinian state. But given international pressure, he has opted to take advantage of the difficulties of his adversaries. Consequently, he claimed that he was unable to negotiate with the Palestinians due to the lack of a sole elected spokesperson. The reunification of both factions deprives him, for the moment, of this argument. However, he still has one solid excuse. How could he negotiate with Hamas given that the Islamist organization does not recognize the state of Israel? It is a prerequisite for any agreement that Hamas recognizes Israel just as the PNA did. In the past, Hamas has indicated that it would be willing to do so provided that Israel precisely defined its borders. Hamas’ negotiators point out that it is difficult to recognize a country that has not fixed its permanent boundaries. With respect to this position, Netanyahu has responded that they will resolve the border dispute as one more point on a laundry list of problems which, among others, includes water rights, the return of Palestinian refugees, and the status of Jerusalem.
As has been the tendency in this conflict, if the political will to come to an agreement does not exist, there is no lack of obstacles that can become insurmountable. In that respect, Obama was explicit in refuting Netanyahu’s contention that he favored waiting and seeing where the wave of uprisings shaking the Middle East ends up. Without naming the Israeli leader, Obama noted, “Indeed, there are those who argue that with all the change and uncertainty in the region, it is simply not possible to move forward. I disagree. At a time when the people of the Middle East and North Africa are casting off the burdens of the past, the drive for a lasting peace that ends the conflict and resolves all claims is more urgent than ever.” It has remained clear throughout the time of the Obama administration that Netanyahu has been able to resist Washington’s pressure regarding a ban on construction of new settlements. Much will depend on whether the Arab nations achieve installation of legitimate governments allowing them greater unity of purpose and international precedence.
What President Obama needs to do is go back to the Clinton Administration’s Camp David Accord, and see why it failed. He is in a unique position, because he has Hillary Clinton as his Secretary of State. She can use her experience as First Lady, when the Clinton Administration was using a great deal of effort to formulate a two-state solution. This needs the same intense tutelage, which the Clinton Administration provided. It cannot be settled with one meeting in Washington, D.C. Like President Clinton, President Obama needs to be making trips to Jerusalem, have on-going contact with Benyamin Netanyahu and Mohmoud Abbas, watch the upcoming Palestinian elections, and have Hillary Clinton do the follow-up on the progress. Then he can have a meeting in Washington, D.C. or Camp David to formulate a final treaty. If started with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat shaking hands on the White House lawn. But now there needs to be intense follow-up. Maybe this can justify why President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize.