Which Netanyahu Is It?

Last year, when the anticipated tensions were rising between the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, a speech Netanyahu gave in which he supposedly supported the notion of a Palestinian state was viewed by some as an evidence of Netanyahu's willingness to break from past stances and accept the need to end the occupation. Here was the beginning of the New York Times story on that occasion:

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, on Sunday endorsed for the first time the principle of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, but on condition that the state was demilitarized and that the Palestinians recognized Israel as the state of the Jewish people.

In a much-anticipated speech meant in part as an answer to President Obama’s address in Cairo on June 4, Mr. Netanyahu reversed his longstanding opposition to Palestinian statehood, a move seen as a concession to American pressure.

This was heralded precisely because Netanyahu was a late comer to the now 20 year peace process based on the two-state framework. The Israeli Prime Minister never believed in a Palestinian State and the charter of his Likud Party denies the possibility of a Palestinian State west of the Jordan. Here is the charter's vital excerpt (emphasis mine):

The overall objectives for the final status with the Palestinians are: to end the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians on the basis of a stable, sustainable agreement and replace confrontation with cooperation and good neighborliness, while safeguarding Israel's vital interests as a secure and prosperous Zionist and Jewish state.

The Likud government will honor all the international agreements signed by its predecessors and strive to achieve a final status arrangement with the Palestinians. The only way to reach a final status arrangement is via dialogue and political negotiations.

The permanent status arrangement will minimize the security dangers implicit in the Oslo accords. The primary such danger is the presence and the possible expansion of the Palestinian security forces within close range of Israel's population centers, government offices, emergency warehouses and staging areas of the Israel Defense Forces.

The permanent status arrangement shall be based on the following principles:

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.

The Palestinians can run their lives freely in the framework of self-rule, but not as an independent and sovereign state.

Of all the leaders who spoke at the launch of the talks last night at the White House, every single one spoke of a Palestinian State.....EXCEPT Netanyahu.

This may seem trivial to some but when you take into consideration how sickeningly common phrases like "Palestinian State" or "two-sides living side by side in peace" and "two-state solution" are in the diplomatic discourse on this issue, its evident that a real effort has to be made to avoid such language.

Netanyahu spoke of a number of things consistent with the language in the Likud Party charter "a secure and durable peace" and a "peace that will end the conflict between us once and for all," a "peace between peoples". But through this, Palestinians heard only what they have heard from Netanyahu for years, that Netanyahu wants peace and security for Israelis and recognizes that "another people shares this land" but stops short of recognizing the necessity of that other people, the Palestinians, to have sovereignty.

Netanyahu's hope is for an economic peace of Palestinian submission, not independence. He hinted at this in his remarks when he said "I see what a period of calm has created in the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, of Jenin, throughout the West Bank, a great economic boom. And real peace can turn this boom into a permanent era of progress and hope."

It seems that this didn't sit well at dinner with the other leaders and President Obama since Netnayahu's remarks this morning at the State Department made clarifications referencing the Bar Ilan speech and his willingness to accept a Palestinian state (that isn't a state). He mentioned reconciling Israel's requirements of security with Palestinian requirements of sovereignty and he mentioned a Palestinian state. But this entire episode, evolving in less than 24 hours, speaks to just how deceptive Netanyahu's words can be and underscores the importance of judging Israeli intentions by actions and not words.

Considering it's actions include the expansion of illegal settlements, the demolition of Palestinian homes, the de-Arabization of Jerusalem and the collective punishment of Gaza, and it's words are coming from someone who said American is easy to push around and admitted he undermined past peace negotiations, what reason do Palestinians have to think anything Netanyahu says about peace is genuine.

Share |