Finally! Finally there is a row between the US and Israel over the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. President Obama found the steel in his backbone to tell off Prime Minister Netanyahu. The formula Obama used was not new, but, significantly, one put forth most recently as part of the Mahmoud Abbas-Salam Fayyad plan to request the recognition of the UN for a Palestinian state within the 1967 boundaries. Obama zeroed in like a hawk on the borders issue and, lo and behold, he ruined most of Netanyahu’s week in Washington.
It has already been pointed out that Obama himself mocked the Palestinian UN plan as leading to only symbolic results. Or that he left the issues of Jerusalem and the refugees to a later stage of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And, finally, that the 1967 borders is a red herring, a non-issue, since Obama also recognized that the final Israeli-Palestinian border will involve territorial swaps. In fact, it has been suggested that by now even Netanyahu wishes to hang on only to “settlement blocs” and is ready to concede the rest of the West Bank.
This, then, appears to be no more than a spat between those who view the glass empty and those who see it as full. We seemed to be asked: should we focus on the land to be kept or ceded? Focusing on the words, however, would be misleading. It is the tune that makes the music.
Obama has been looking since his inauguration for a formula to jolt to life the moribund Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. His first, unsuccessful, formula was a settlement freeze. He received bad advice: experience has shown the settlements can either expand or shrink, but cannot be put in the freezer. This time, he wrapped the settlement issue within the borders controversy and created the possibility for real traction. Obama has broken the ice and herein resides the significance of his statement on the 1967 borders.
Netanyahu’s response was that the 1967 borders are indefensible; hence Israel will not consider them. But let’s consider for a minute the notion of “defensible borders,” or for that matter “natural borders” – these are concepts from an era of static warfare long gone. Netanyahu’s willingness to conjure them demonstrates his brain-freeze. Even the 1973 Israeli-Egyptian “defensible borders” were anything but. To attach the term to the long fingers of settlement that extend Israel’s borders by jutting into the West Bank in Ma’ale Adumim and Ariel shows contempt for even the most minimal military logic.
Netanyahu’s refusal to work with the President brings into the open his immobility. No matter how much hoopla will surround his Congressional address, Netanyahu’s talk of commitment to peace has been revealed as empty. This should have consequences.
Last time the Security Council called on Israel to freeze its settlements, echoing Obama’s own call, the US vetoed the resolution and exposed the gap between its words and actions. For the new formulation to carry real weight it needs to be attached to a concrete political move. I suggest that Obama’s call for using the 1967 cease-fire lines as the starting point for solving the territorial aspect of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute opens the door to US support for the UN’s expected September resolution. It is time for the US to walk through that door.
A US vote for, or even abstention from, such a UNGA resolution, would fit well with the reasons Obama provided for his new approach. The President explicitly pointed out his intention of saving Israel from itself, from the demographic, technological, and democratic deficits it is likely to incur the more it remains in the occupied territories. Similarly, a UN General Assembly resolution in favor of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders serves Israel’s interests first and foremost.
The UN resolution would privilege the two-state solution to the conflict, the only outcome that would allow a Jewish-majority Israel to find its legs again and flourish. This would focus the peace-process on real political outcomes and away from the recently-invented insistence on Palestinian recognition of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Making the two state-solution into the internationally favored and sanctioned option would also marginalize the slowly rising tide of one-staters and bi-nationalists. To wit, the latter options are intellectual constructs that never had deep roots and command only partial support even among their adherents. After all, the vast majority of Palestinians do not espouse it, and the overwhelming majority of Israelis view it as a threat. They direct attention away from the solution most Palestinians and Israelis favor, two states, side-by-side.
Will the US match words with action? We will be able to tell the seriousness of President Obama’s new formulation from his attitude toward the expected September UN General Assembly resolution.
It seems obvious that Bibi has to go before there can be any chance of peace. He conveniently leaves out a key part of what Obama was saying when lecturing on the viability of Israel’s borders. By ignoring the condition of “mutually agreed swaps” proposed not only by Obama, but previous administrations, he sets up the US as not being a supporter of Israel. Just today I picked up the phone, which I don’t usually do when I’m not sure of the caller ID, but the ring woke me up and I was half asleep. A recorded woman’s voice said she was calling on behalf of the Republican-Jewish Coalition, and proceeded to say that President Obama has called for Israel to return to the 1967 borders and wanted to ask me three short questions. First question: “If you support Israel, press 2.” I found that question something like “when did you stop beating your wife.” I support Israel, but I feel in order for Israel to live in peace with its neighbors, the status quo has to to change. I didn’t press 2, waiting for the next question, but instead, the mechanical woman just repeated the same question. Another pause, then the voice gave a number to call if I didn’t want to be called again. I don’t remember the number, but if I can find one for the Republican-Jewish Coalition, I’d like to give someone a piece of my mind, though I know it won’t stop these calls from spewing falsehoods where ever they can get someone to answer to phone.
I’ve never seen public negotiations work in the private sector. Usually the best progress is made confidential negotiating sessions that take place between two parties that want to reach an agreement. All negotiators are aware of their BATNA (best alternative to a negotiated agreement); and keep this in mind during negotiations. It appears to me that both sides believe that their respective BATNA is likely to be better for them than a negotiated arrangement. Israel in a negotiation will have to give up territory and there is no assurance to them that the resultant entity will not seek its existential negation.
Besides these negotiating process and substance concerns, I think that the entire process suffers from a lack of vision for the proposed Palestinian state. It might exist and I’m just not aware of it. Beyond the establishment of the state, what does this state aspire to be, and how does it propose getting there? In order to generate support and investment in the future state a compelling vision needs to created. What are the core competencies that can be capitalized on to achieve it? For instance, can the new state become a regional center for education, engineering and healthcare, or does it aspire to support its prosperity through technology? An economic base needs to be established, and the political, social, and cultural aspirations need to be identified. While thinking about the borders may be an entry point, it will go nowhere unless there is a powerful vision.
Considering the many, many standing ovations in US congress, why not swap presidents? Obama goes to Israel and Bibi becomes president of the US?