The front page of Haaretz carried an article by Gideon Levy after Netanyahu’s speech, in which he wrote that “the courageous call of Uri Avnery and his friends four decades ago is now being echoed, though feebly, from end to end (of the Israeli political spectrum).”
I would be lying if I denied feeling a brief glow of satisfaction, but it faded quickly. This was no “historic” speech, not even a “great” speech. It was a clever speech. It contained some sanctimonious verbiage to appease Barack Obama, followed right away by the opposite, to pacify the Israeli extreme right. Not much more. Netanyahu declared that “our hand is extended for peace.” That was Ben-Gurion’s method. Before every provocation he would declare that “our hands are extended for peace”, adding conditions that he knew were totally unacceptable to the other side. Thus the world saw Israel as a peace-loving country, while the Arabs looked like serial peace-killers.
I do not underrate, of course, the significance of the chief of the Likud uttering the two words: “Palestinian state”.
But even if the words “Palestinian state” passed his lips only under duress, and when Netanyahu has no intention at all of turning them into reality, it is still important that the head of the government and the chief of the Likud was compelled to utter them. The idea of the Palestinian state has now become a part of the national consensus. But this is only the beginning. The main struggle will be about turning the idea into reality.
The entire speech was addressed to one single person: Barack Obama. It was not designed to appeal to the Palestinians. It was quite clear that the Palestinians are only the passive object of a discussion between the president of the US and the prime minister of Israel.
He is ready, so he says, to conduct negotiations with the “Palestinian community”, and that, of course, “without preconditions”. Meaning: without Palestinian preconditions. On Netanyahu’s part, there are plenty of preconditions.
1. The Arabs have to recognize Israel as “the nation-state of the Jewish people.”
When the United Nations resolved in 1947 to partition Palestine between a “Jewish state” and an “Arab state”, they did not mean to define the character of the states.
2. The Palestinian Authority must first of all establish its rule over the Gaza Strip. How? After all, the Israeli government prevents travel between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and no Palestinian force can pass from one to the other. And the solution of the problem by establishing a Palestinian unity government is also ruled out.
3. The Palestinian state will be demilitarized. Israel would control the air space and the border crossings of the Palestinian state, turning it into a kind of giant Gaza Strip. Netanyahu obviously hopes that the word “demilitarized” would be enough to get the Palestinians to say “no”.
4. Undivided Jerusalem will remain under Israeli rule.
That by itself ensures that no Palestinian, nor any Arab or even any Muslim, could accept the proposal.
5. Between Israel and the Palestinian state there will be “defensible borders”.
This means no return to the 1967 borders, not even with a swap of territory that would allow for some of the large settlements to be joined to Israel. In order to create “defensible borders”, a major part of the occupied Palestinian territories (which altogether make up just 22 percent of pre-1948 Palestine) will be absorbed into Israel.
6. The refugee problem will be solved “outside the territory of Israel”. This also is clearly designed to bring about an automatic refusal.
7. No settlement freeze. The “normal life” of the settlers will continue. This means the building activity for the “natural increase” will go on. Michael Tarazy, a legal adviser to the PLO said: “We are negotiating about sharing a pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating it.”
So what is more important? The verbal recognition of “a Palestinian state” or the conditions which empty these words of all content?
The public response is interesting. In an opinion poll taken immediately after the speech, 71 percent supported it, but 55 percent believed that Netanyahu just “gave in to American pressure”, and 70 percent did not believe that a Palestinian state would really come about during the next few years.
What exactly do the 71 percent support? The “Palestinian state” solution or the conditions which obstruct its implementation — or both?
Netanyahu and the right-wing hoped that the Palestinians would reject his words outright, thus painting themselves as serial peace refusers, while the Israeli government would be seen as taking the first small but significant step toward peace. They are sure that this could be achieved for nothing: The Palestinian state will not be set up, the Israeli government will not give up anything, the occupation will remain, settlement activity will go on and Obama will accept all this.
So the main question is: How will Obama react?
The first reaction was minor. A politely positive response.It seems that he wants to exert “soft” pressure, vigorously but quietly. To my mind, that is a wise approach.
The decisive point at this moment is, of course, the matter of the settlements. Will Obama insist on a total freeze of all building activity or not?
Netanyahu has now found a new gimmick: Projects that have already started must be allowed to be finished. One cannot stop them in the middle. The plans have already been approved. The tenants are waiting for their apartments, and they must not be made to suffer. If Obama falls for this, he should not be surprised to find out belatedly that these projects include 100,000 new housing units.
This brings us to the most important fact of this week: The settlers did not raise hell after Netanyahu’s speech. Which brings us back to the unforgettable Sherlock Holmes, who explained how he solved one of his mysteries by drawing attention to “the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
“But the dog did nothing in the night-time!” someone objected.
“That was the curious incident,” remarked Holmes.
