The Netanyahu Conundrum

Insist the Palestinians accept Jewish State demand and insist Israel accepts their counter-demand on settlements. Peace could be the prize.

By JERROLD KESSEL, PIERRE KLOCHENDLER
conundrum (do not publish again) (photo credit: avi katz)
conundrum (do not publish again)
(photo credit: avi katz)
IN THE WAKE OF HIS STINGING ELECTORAL REBUKE, the US president must be telling himself, “I can’t afford to allow my Mideast peace talks to rot in limbo – it’s time to act.” With the Iran nuclear question looming large, decay in Palestinian-Israeli peace-making is simply no option.
During the limbo period of recent months, both Israelis and Palestinians have added to Barack Obama’s discomfort, putting a spoke in the direct peace talks that started in September: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu refused to extend the settlement freeze; Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salaam Fayyad has been campaigning for unilateral UN recognition of “Palestine.” Obama can probably parry this complicating initiative of the PAprime minister for a while, but what to do with a stubborn Israeli prime minister?
Netanyahu has created a conundrum. Actually, he is the conundrum.
The prime minister has sown confusion – even among fellow Israelis – as to his peace intentions. It culminated in his conditioning of a further temporary settlement freeze on Palestinian recognition of Israel’s national identity as a “Jewish State.” Was he genuinely engaging peace or merely preparing the ground for engaging the Palestinians in a blame-game?
Netanyahu has been good at cloaking his intentions. But, rather than trying to fathom whether he is dissembler par excellence or not, he can be put to the test – not so much by calling his bluff, but by testing how true he is about a final peace agreement.
Rather than concede a renewed settlement freeze “gratuitously,” thereby risking his right-wing coalition, Netanyahu’s strategy has been to keep his government intact. Let’s presume the prime minister is genuine about peace. Until a framework peace agreement is concluded, Netanyahu would find it much harder to reach a deal, let alone implement any agreed withdrawals from the occupied territories without the right at his side. Keeping the coalition intact would also help him secure the backing of the majority of Israelis. The previous major peace drive that ended in the Rabin-Arafat Oslo peace accords enjoyed only the barest of majorities; Netanyahu is all too aware of that – he was the main opponent.
Netanyahu’s insistence that in return for a mere temporary settlement freeze, Israel receive a substantial quid pro quo in the form of a Palestinian concession on the refugee question obviously rallies his coalition. Against expectations, however, Netanyahu’s strategy might also actually enhance peace prospects – provided Obama plays it right.
Has Netanyahu given the hard-pressed US president a chance to hoist him on his own petard? Will Washington take the opportunity to make a final test of whether the Israeli leader is indeed genuine about peace or whether his intention is only to keep his coalition intact and the White House off his back? Obama should take up the challenge to clarify, once and for all, what Netanyahu’s really up to. And, he could do so without being perceived by his critics at home as pressing Israel hard – something he might feel disinclined to do after the pasting at the polls.
With Netanyahu’s demand for recognition of a “Jewish state” now, the whole nature of peace negotiations could be altered. Acceptance by the Palestinians of Israel as a “Jewish state” equals their giving up their demand on refugees. That is what Netanyahu set out to do – test the Palestinians. It may not have been his intention, but the prime minister has effectively vaulted over the largely procedural issue of the temporary freeze, catapulting a critical final-status issue into the heart of the negotiations.
For a mere extension of the partial settlement freeze, the Palestinians are naturally reluctant to give up their core insistence on the “right of return” for their refugees into Israel. No wonder they gave Netanyahu’s proposal a blunt “No.” Then, Yasser Abed Rabbo, a close confidante of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, let it slip: Were there agreement on final borders between the two states, then Palestinians would be ready to accept Israel “however it wants.” It’s the right direction.
But the Palestinian concession to accept Netanyahu’s demand for recognition of the Jewish State and their parallel demand of Israel regarding the settlements should be made now.
Netanyahu should be hoisted on his national identity petard, not in exchange for a mere temporary freeze but rather for a total end to settlement building – at least so long as the White House peace effort hasn’t failed. Netanyahu has made a maximalist demand; the Palestinians have the right to counter that with a maximalist demand, not on refugees but on settlements.
The prime minister has handed Obama an opportunity to transform a fluttering peace process. Testing where the would-be peace partners are at goes both ways: Insist the Palestinians accept Netanyahu’s Jewish State demand and insist Israel accepts their counter-demand on settlements.
Put both tests at the center of the peace table now.
It’s time for Obama to go for broke. Peace could be the prize. At the very least, Netanyahu’s intentions will be crystal clear.
Jerrold Kessel and Pierre Klochendler are independent journalists and filmmakers based in Jerusalem.