Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s dislike of the concept of a two-state solution to the long-standing Palestinian-Israeli conflict could not be more obvious.
His record indicates beyond doubt that he has been doing everything possible to undermine the scenario of the two-state solution. Interestingly enough, his anti-peace actions have not yet hurt him politically. In other words, his twin objectives of political survival and ducking a two-state outcome seem compatible.
Of course, there are those who criticize him for many of his policies. But the fact remains that he has been loyal to his convictions. According to Aluf Benn from Haaretz, Netanyahu has been an excellent manager who knows well how to reconcile between three objectives: “Keeping his government in power and perpetuating the occupation in the West Bank and East Jerusalem while minimizing domestic and international opposition.” He also argues that all of his policies are a function of the interplay of these three objectives.
Over the last few years, the international community has failed to put any pressure on the Israeli government to act differently. Besides, Netanyahu takes advantage of the new regional developments and the hesitance of Obama’s administration to create new facts on the ground. These new facts will only chip the way at any prospect of a viable two-state solution. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Arabs are fixated with other regional crises, the Syrian crisis and the subversive actions of Iran in particular. In his turn, Netanyahu has been exploiting the Arabs’ and the international community’s distraction from the Arab-Israeli conflict and focus on the Syrian crisis.
And yet, Netanyahu’ main concern is political survival. He learnt the hard way from his first tenure as a prime minister that his survival hinges on the strength of the ruling coalition. Amid the disintegration of the Palestinian politics, the continuation of the Palestinian disunity and the lack of international pressure, Netanyahu feels that responding positively to some o the Palestinian demands may risk the stability of his ruling coalition. Hence, Netanyahu has put the two-state solution on the back burner. Seen in this way, I would argue that the wider game for Netanyahu is nothing but political survival. Unless there is an external pressure that could change the priorities of the Israeli voters, Netanyahu will neither budge nor lose his political relevance.
Many observers wonder if Netanyahu and like-minded Israeli politicians ever thought about scenarios other than a two-state solution and how such scenarios will affect the ideals of Zionism. Put differently, the failure of the two-state solution will by no means lead to the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Indeed, the alternative to the two-state solution is one-state solution.
It is not yet clear how Netanyahu and his allies in Israel are going to address this burning question. If the Palestinians are left with no state of their own, they may be living in a one state that stretches from the Mediterranean to the River Jordan. The problem in this case is that the Palestinians will enjoy a clear demographic advantage. Will Israel survive as an apartheid state? Will it become a bi-national state? These two questions are being ducked for the time being by the Israeli right and Netanyahu. But soon, they will come to the fore.
