The globalization of the conflict

The concatenation of global pressures on domestic and foreign affairs is denying the Israeli government the free hand it once had.

By ILAN BARUCH
There could well be international intervention through a new UN Security Council resolution (photo credit: REUTERS)
There could well be international intervention through a new UN Security Council resolution
(photo credit: REUTERS)
OUT OF the murky diplomatic shadows, an American framework for negotiations on a permanent Israeli-Palestinian peace is emerging.
The picture taking shape suggests that US Secretary of State John Kerry intends to include ideas that will be hard to swallow in both Jerusalem and Ramallah. However, the threat to the Israeli side is far greater.
The moment Kerry reveals a package that is almost certain to include the 1967 borders plus land swaps, a Palestinian capital in East Jerusalem, evacuation of settlements outside the large settlement blocs and security arrangements in the Jordan Valley with only a temporary IDF presence, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will face a serious coalition crisis. Even a reference to Palestinian recognition of Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people will not save him. His government could implode.
What we are witnessing is no less than a paradigmatic change in the rules of the game. In the past, the Israeli government controlled the degree of peacemaking progress by virtue of its military, diplomatic and economic power. The US and EU treated Israel with kid gloves.
Despite their persistent lip service to the primacy of the peace process, Jerusalem was largely given a free hand and allowed to make its own political judgments and move ahead (or not) at its own pace. Five years of deadlock under Netanyahu masked unbridled expansion of the settlement enterprise and systematic expulsion of Palestinians from the Hebron hills and the Jordan Valley.
But now the international community is waking up. Moreover, Israel will not be able to go on ignoring the major regional transformation now underway. For one, Washington wants to see far-reaching changes in its relationship with the region over the coming decade.
The axiom that Israel-US ties are based on shared values and common interests has been dented. In his address to the Israeli people in Jerusalem last March, US President Barack Obama underlined the fact that ending the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians is a paramount American interest. In other words, continuing the Israeli occupation of the West Bank runs counter to the American interest and contravenes American values. And that could lead to intensified American pressure on Israel.
The way the Europeans are playing their diplomatic cards in the Middle East is also changing to Israel’s detriment. Their traditional backseat restraint while America mediates between the parties has given way to a more proactive approach, which, in turn, is influencing Washington.
The insistent European demand that international law prohibiting Israeli settlement in occupied territory be respected poses a major challenge to the Netanyahu government. The consequent European government and private sector avoidance of dealings with the settlements threatens to undermine Israel’s stability and prosperity. It also has profound implications for the stability of the government coalition.
Moreover, the “Arab Spring” accelerated the globalization of Middle East politics, gradually exposing Israel to its influence.
The way the West intervened in matters of government in the Arab states set the tone. Issues once considered domestic and off limits to outside interference became part of the new global process. For Israel this means that the exclusivity of its control over Palestinian life is being eroded as it finds itself under pressure to enter into new regional and global partnerships, for example in the context of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative.
The concatenation of global pressures on domestic and foreign affairs is denying the Israeli government the free hand it once had. True, American/European/Arab pressure for progress through the Kerry framework could be blocked for a time if the Netanyahu coalition collapses. But any alternative government, whether formed by Netanyahu bringing in new partners or after early elections, will find the Kerry framework on the table, just as before. Treading water is not an option.
So what is the likely outcome? There could well be international intervention through a new UN Security Council Resolution or through international arbitration agreed to by the parties. Either way the negotiating room will be transformed from the well-worn bilateral track to an American-led trilateral track or to a multilateral process led by, say, the five permanent members of the Security Council (the US, Russia, China, Britain and France) and Germany – as in the case of the current international negotiation with Iran.
Israel would be well-advised to go along with the new processes, creating effective channels for its own input. To resist would be at its peril.
Ilan Baruch, a former ambassador to South Africa, is a peace activist and political adviser to the leader of the Meretz party.