Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. LII
No 21
Political Comment (25 May 2009)
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington has confirmed that he and President Barack Obama differ on most regional issues.
Obama Calls For Two State Solution: Netanyahu Reticent
Behind a smokescreen of the customary reaffirmation of the "special relationship" between Israel and the US and the reassurance that "Israel's security is paramount," it was clear that the 18 May meeting between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed that there were differences of opinion of varying intensity on every subject discussed ‒ to wit, the Palestinians, Iran and the relationship between the two.
As expected, Mr Obama opened the press conference after the meeting by repeating his strong support for a two-state solution to the conflict over Palestine and urging both sides to take their obligations under the road map and Annapolis (a reference which is unlikely to please the Israelis) seriously. "It is I believe in the interest not only of the Palestinians but also the Israelis and the US and the international community to achieve a two-state solution in which the Israelis and Palestinians are living side by side in peace and security," he said. "We have seen progress stalled on this front, and I suggested to the Prime Minister that he has an historic opportunity to get a serious movement on this issue during his tenure. That means that all the parties involved have to take seriously obligations that they've previously agreed to. Those obligations were outlined in the road map; they were discussed extensively in Annapolis. And I think there is no reason why we should not seize this opportunity and this moment for all the parties concerned to take seriously those obligations and to move forward in a way that assures Israel's security…but that also allows Palestinians to govern themselves as an independent state, that allows economic development to take place, that allows them to make serious progress in meeting the aspirations of their people." To arrive at this conclusion, "the Palestinians are going to have to do a better job of providing the kinds of security assurances that Israelis would need to achieve a two-state solution…the other Arab states have to be more supportive in seeking potential normalization with Israel." But equally, "Israel is going to have to take some difficult steps as well, and I shared with the Prime Minister the fact that under the road map and under Annapolis" ‒ again ‒ "that there's a clear understanding that we have to make progress on settlements. Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward. That's a difficult issue. I recognize that, but it's an important one and it has to be addressed."
In response, Mr Netanyahu paid lip service to the idea of reviving the peace process, saying "I share with you very much the desire to move the peace process forward. And I want to start negotiations with the Palestinians immediately…I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them," but he signally failed to mention settlements or to deploy the adjective "two-state." Instead, he produced two qualifications which are clearly potential deal killers. First, "if we resume negotiations, as we plan to do, then I think that the Palestinians will have to recognize Israel as a Jewish state;" and secondly, the Palestinians "will have also to enable Israel to have the means to defend itself." Put somewhat differently, Mr Netanyahu wants the Palestinians "to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel." It will be interesting to learn what he means by that "handful of powers."
The Iranian Threat
When it came to the Iranians, Mr Netanyahu preferred to speak in apocalyptic terms, claiming that "if Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons, it could give a nuclear umbrella to terrorists, or worse, it could actually give terrorists nuclear weapons. And that would put us all in great peril." Mr Obama took a more measured view of the threat posed by Iran, saying that "Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon would not only be a threat to Israel and a threat to the US, but would be profoundly destabilizing in the international community as a whole and could set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East." He also "assured the Prime Minister that we are not foreclosing a range of steps, including much stronger international sanctions, in assuring that Iran understands that we are serious." But he clearly rejected the recent attempt by Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman to impose a three-month deadline for progress in talks with Iran, saying "you know I don't want to set an artificial deadline." However, he went on to indicate what kind of time horizon he had in mind when he added that "it is important for us, I think, without having set an artificial deadline, to be mindful of the fact that we're not going to have talks for ever…my expectation would be that if we can begin discussions soon, shortly after the Iranian elections, we should have a fairly good sense by the end of the year as to whether they are moving in the right direction and whether the parties involved are making progress and that there's a good faith effort to resolve differences."
Iran And Palestine
There was also a clear disagreement over the relative positions of cart and horse when it comes to Mr Netanyahu's attempt to link Iran and Palestine. The Israeli prime minister has of late taken the position that progress on the Palestinian front can only be possible once the Iranian threat is dealt with. Mr Obama, rather more realistically, thinks that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict in a manner acceptable to the majority of Palestinians will deprive Iran and the wider Islamic world of the oxygen that feeds the flames of Islamic resentment and militancy. In Mr Obama's own words: "There is no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat…Having said that, if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians ‒ between the Palestinians and the Israelis, then actually I think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat…imagine how much less mischief a Hizbollah or a Hamas could do if in fact we had moved a Palestinian-Israeli track in a direction that gave the Palestinian people hope. And if Hizbollah and Hamas are weakened, imagine how that impacts Iran's ability to make mischief."
It is hard to fault Mr Obama's reasoning, but he clearly faces a monumental task in trying to translate it into reality. For a start, the Palestinians are insisting that the Israelis must halt all settlement activity and accept the principle of a two-state solution before negotiations can begin, and while as the weaker party they may prove to be flexible on these demands, they may be less pliant when it comes to Mr Netanyahu's insistence that they recognize Israel as a Jewish state, in effect conceding the result of the peace process before it begins. And should these obstacles somehow be overcome, it seems likely that serious negotiations will only reveal that Mr Netanyahu's definition of the word "state" is not one that can be found in any dictionary.
Charles Snow