Netanyahu Expresses Support for Palestinian State, Palestinians Skeptical

Related subjects: Diplomacy & Politics, In the Loop, J.E. Robertson, Middle East, Security & Surveillance, U.S. Politics Comments (0)

4 July 2009 :: J.E. Robertson

Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of the state of Israel, long a hard-line opponent of any idea of a Palestinian state, last month signaled his willingness to back a Palestinian state, with conditions attached. Among the conditions Netanyahu would require would be the total demilitarization of a new Palestinian state. His remarks were praised abroad as an evolution, perhaps spurred by US president Barack Obama’s insistence on willingness to compromise in the interests of peace.

Saeb Erakat, chief negotiator for the Palestinian Authority, under Mahmoud Abbas, quickly dismissed Netanyahu’s sudden evolution as an attempt to essentially put an end to any possibility of a negotiated settlement, suggesting Palestinians could not agree to such harsh conditions. Netanyahu called for “clear commitments that in a future peace agreement, the territory controlled by the Palestinians will be demilitarized: namely, without an army, without control of its airspace…”

The foreign minister of the Czech Republic was among those foreign dignitaries praising Netanyahu’s speech as “a step in the right direction”. The EU discussed the new position espoused by Netanyahu as a threshold moment in the negotiations. The demand for total demilitarization has led some to suggest, however, that such a Palestinian state would be unable to prevent extremist groups from arming to ignite tensions again or endanger the integrity of the state itself.

Netanyahu was not clear on the tactical specifics of a demilitarized Palestinian state, which could wind up dependent on Israel to use military force to raid its territory and secure against the rise of terrorist organizations more radical than the official government. With the immense power of Israel’s military, it is easy to see how Palestinian leaders would find it hard to win public support for a state that would have no security capacity.

Internal politics is a major consideration on both sides of the Israel-Palestine peace process. On 29 June, Netanyahu met with opposition leader Tzipi Livni for the first time since April. Talks between the two had stalled several times throughout the month, and it has been reported they discussed “security issues”, with few additional details released. The PM is obliged to brief the opposition leader periodically, but a meeting was cancelled two weeks earlier, with Netanyahu claiming he had contracted the flu.

There has been pressure from some in the opposition Kadima party to join Netanyahu’s governing coalition and take an active role in the direction of policy, including on peace and security. But Livni said after the elections that she would not join with a hard-right leadership, and seems for now to be with the Kadima bloc that seeks to pressure Netanyahu into centrism that could threaten his coalition government.

It could be said Netanyahu needs to take a tough stand on security, by calling for demilitarization, in part because the US has taken such a firm line against any continued settlement construction. Could the total demilitarization demand be a bargaining chip? Could it be designed to allow for some concessions that would permit one or two settlement outposts to remain in place or be expanded in the complex framework of a two-state solution?

Netanyahu made a gamble on siding with the far-right parties that would free him to pursue a more hardline Likud policy on security and Palestinian peace negotiations, but it was argued from the beginning that he might be working against the winds of change, which were blowing more moderate, on both sides of the US political divide and with the rise of a centrist Kadima party at home in Israel.

But Kadima leader Livni refused to consent to joining a coalition with the policies Netanyahu proposed. The Palestinian Authority is also facing its own political dilemma. An electoral split, leading to a military maneuver that put Hamas in charge of Gaza, has the more moderate Fatah party unable to make great diplomatic or security-policy leaps in exchange for peace, while Hamas, deemed a terrorist organization by the US and Israel, maintains its claim to be a legitimate military-political force for defense of the Palestinian cause.

Hamas has consistently worked as counterweight to the far-right position in Israeli politics, refusing to recognize Israel as a legitimate nation, unless and until major concessions are made to the Palestinians, like the right of Palestinian return and a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem. Fatah has to deal with the reality that any negotiations that concede too much risk deepening a violent internal split in Palestinian politics.

There is a train of thought that sees Netanyahu’s adoption of a possible two-state position as a logical progression in the gradual softening of the most extreme pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian camps, both of which had always claimed an absolute historical and moral right to control the entire space of what is now Israel and Palestine. With Sharon, Olmert and Livni moving into the two-state camp alongside Peres and Barak, the only major mainstream political figure in Israel still dead-set against a Palestinian state was Netanyahu.

With Netanyahu moving toward the pragmatist center on a viable negotiated settlement, some see opportunity for major advances in peace. The Obama administration in Washington has made it clear through a number of channels, they are not interested in placating conservative elements in Israel who might be more interested in obstructing peace than reaching it, and that level of firm leadership, always reiterating the US’ unwavering support for Israel’s rights and security, is what many have called for throughout the Oslo and Quartet eras.