The new Israeli government led by Likud leader Benjamin Netanyahu has raised many conflicting feelings among those concerned about the fate of the Arab-Israeli peace process. Will Netanyahu scuttle the little progress that was made under his predecessor Olmert, or will he engage the Palestinians anew? Questions about whether he will resume negotiations with Syria, how he will tackles Iran's nuclear threat, and if he will get along with President Obama remain unanswered. Yet given the right political environment created by the Obama administration and supported by the leading Arab states and the Palestinians, Netanyahu has the potential to advance the peace negotiations significantly, and may end up surprising everyone in the process.
On the positive side, those who know him well suggest that Netanyahu has matured considerably since he was first prime minister (1996-1999). He is well aware that he may never be given another opportunity as prime minister and that he now stands before an historic crossroad. Netanyahu understands the requirements for peace from being at the negotiating table many times before. He appreciates the Israeli public sentiments and is certainly not oblivious to what the Obama administration expects from any Israeli prime minister at this juncture in a region laden with multiple crises. Moreover, the eyes of the international community are fixed on him and he is only too aware of the burden he has just assumed and the limited time he has to demonstrate sound policies. Netanyahu has said he wants peace with security for his country. He argues for strengthening the Palestinian economy and engaging in the peace process, while not excluding making progress on the Syrian front. Iran still poses the largest security threat to Israel, and Netanyahu insists that it must be neutralized.
There is nothing from his tough campaign rhetoric that precludes the establishment of a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace. While the appointment of the right-wing Avigdor Lieberman as foreign minister may have signaled to many a shift away from any peacemaking efforts, it is likely that Netanyahu will use Lieberman strategically for his tough rhetoric to satisfy the more hawkish Israeli constituency. When it comes down to the bargaining table though, once Netanyahu feels he has an honest shot at peace with security he will not let Lieberman get in his way. Persuading Labor to join his coalition government and Ehud Barak as his Defense Minister also shifts the balance of power toward moderation. His coalition may well signal that the future peace process will be anchored in tight security arrangements, and that he and Barak can offer the toughness and leverage needed to secure such a peace. Netanyahu and Barak are capable of negotiating simultaneously with both Syria and the Palestinians. Though the peace negotiations with the Palestinians will be painstaking and take much longer to conclude, a steady progress can still be made aggressively while pursuing the Syrian track.
Alternatively, left to his own ideological convictions and without American pressure, Netanyahu can easily retreat back to his old ways. Palestinian disunity and internal struggle within the Arab states will make finding a partner for peace extremely difficult. He will likely expand the settlements, respond harshly to Hamas' violent provocations, and focus exclusively on Iranian threats while relegating the Israeli-Palestinian peace process to the back burner. He might even ignore Syria's overtures for peace, especially because Damascus is not in a position to regain the Golan by force. It is possible Netanyahu will only attempt to pay lip service to the Obama's political agenda in the Middle East, and will cooperate only on matters of national security.
These are the two sides to Netanyahu, though they are not necessarily contradictory. He can lean either direction depending on the level, intensity and consistency of the American involvement not only in trying to mediate an Israeli-Palestinian peace but engaging all other regional players in conflict resolution. To enlist Netanyahu as a partner for peace, President Obama must be specific and clear about what must and can be done to advance the peace process while addressing Israel's main national security concerns, starting with Iran.
The Obama administration needs to heavily cooperate with Israel over Iran's nuclear program, and must demonstrate greater sensitivity to Israel's concerns over this existential threat. Whereas a diplomatic course with Tehran must be fully explored by the US, it must commence immediately so that any possible resolution to the nuclear impasse can be found within 2009, a timeframe that is considered safe before Israel contemplates taking matters into its own hands.
While President Obama must support Netanyahu's plan to build a strong economic base for the Palestinians, he must at the same time insist that a political progress is also being made especially in the West Bank. In that connection, George Mitchell and the Obama administration must be clear with Netanyahu that all illegal outposts are dismantled and a temporary freeze on all settlement activity is enforced. These actions have almost no security implications for Israel, but they create conditions that must exist for the Palestinians and Arab states to take the negotiations seriously.
As Mr. Obama recently embraced the Arab Peace Initiative when he met with the Saudi King Abdullah in London, he must now lean heavily on the leading Arab states, especially Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria as well (now that Washington and Damascus are talking) to exert whatever pressure necessary on Hamas to moderate and join the political process. They must resolve now to rein in Hamas and establish a Palestinian unity government with the Palestinian Authority that can speak in one voice. Moreover, the Obama administration must take every measure necessary to prevent future smuggling of weapons to Gaza. Otherwise, as long as Hamas has weapons and continues to violently resist Israel's existence, it will provide Netanyahu with a valid excuse to freeze the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.
President Obama must also openly call on Netanyahu to put the Israeli-Syrian negotiations on the fast track and be prepared to become directly involved in the process. By engaging Syria, the Obama administration can re-contextualize the peace process and give it the comprehensiveness that has been lacking. Peace between Israel and Syria is within reach and could have broad regional security implications serving both the United States' as well as Israel's national security interests. Moreover, without Israeli-Syrian rapprochement, the task of dealing with Iran will be simply insurmountable.
To be sure, Netanyahu knows that this is his second and likely final chance to advance the Arab-Israeli peace process, but he is not prepared to undermine Israel's legitimate national security concerns for the sake of claiming the peace. As long as President Obama discerns those genuine national security issues and addresses them effectively with Netanyahu, he may find the new Israeli Prime Minister a willing partner for sustainable peace.
This is a vital condition allowing for this conflict.resolution. Otherwise it would be just more talk.
Yeah, they tried that once. Israel destroyed the Palestinian unity government, with a little help from Bush and Blair. Apparently the "peace offensive" was too much for Israel to handle.
Arafat broke every agreement he ever entered. Including those with Arab states.
Now Hamas is collaborating with another opponent of their most generous supporter Saudi Arabia.
Not an legacy which easily leads to peace.
Given the winning lottery numbers, intervention by God, the cooperation of everyone in the world and the willingness of lions to lay down with assorted carnivores I too could get Netanyahu to make peace with the Palestinians. And it certainly would surprise everyone.
This article is just so much semi sophisticated propaganda. The jury returned a long time ago on Bibi and he is NOT a man even remotely capable of seeking peace. A nuke strike maybe, peace no.
Israel withdrew from Gaza and has been under attack from terrorist ever since. How do you expect them to further withdraw from the West Bank when every single gesture of good will is responded with violence.
WoodyTanaka, your arguments are one dimensional and plane stupid. You have some reading to do.
When the Israelis chose Benjamin Netanyahu as their leader they also knew exactly what they were getting, a man who hates the Palestinians, who embraces war, who thinks the settlements on occupied territory should continue and a man who prefers to attack Iran rather than sit down and talk with the Iranians.
Now we are told that Netanyahu will be like Nixon, an ultra conservative hawk who opened negotiations with Red China. We are told to ignore the bombastic rhetoric of the old Netanyahu and that he may surprise everyone by engaging in a peaceful dialogue with the Palestinians.
With all due respect to those touting Netanyahu as a potential advocate for peace, this is a bunch of malarkey, maybe if Israel actually selected an individual who embraced a fair and honest resolution between the Palestinians and the Israelis they might have some creditability.
But instead we are told that the warmonger the Israelis just elected, may surprise us and change his spots and embrace peace, would it not have been better to select a person who actually supported peace in the first place instead of selecting a person who supports war but may shock everyone and support peace?? Discombobulated logic.
Barak made the boldest peace offer to Palestinians in 2000 (Arafat said a few years later that he would take that offer if it was still there), offering most of East Jerusalem and the occupied territories. In return, Israel got an intifada.
5 years later, Israel withdraws from Gaza unilaterally, extinguishing all civil and military occupation of the strip, offering to progressively loosen the air and sea control in exchange for Hamas' recognition of Israel's right to exist. The response comes; thousands of rockets fired against Israeli territory.
What do you expect?! I don't like Netanyahu but it seems that only leaders from the right are strong enough to take these steps (Begin, Sharon).
Stop being biased.
Stop thinking Israel is to be blamed for all the problems in the Middle East. This sort of view will never bring peace.
I don't say this to somehow push Lieberman as an enlightened statesman. He is not. He is a (probably) racist and a dangerous ultra-nationalist. I say it as an indictment of Netanyahu. Benjamin Netanyahu is opposed to a state peace settlement. He advocates improving the Palestinian economy and continuing their 'autonomy' within Israel. While many of the criticisms of Israeli 'apartheid' are erroneous, Netanyahu and the rump of the Likud represent the faction that truly advocate an 'apartheid' Palestinian policy. It is ridiculous to assume Netanyahu is less 'racist' than Lieberman and his peace credentials are far weaker, which is saying something.
I understand the desire to talk down American fears of the Netanyahu government, but this article is either ignorant or deliberately misrepresentative about Netanyahu and his agenda.
I do not need to be convinced of his possibly good intentions. It is imo Mr Netanyahu who needs some straight talk.
As for Golda Meir, I think she had Israeli policy towards the palestinians exactlly right when she stated "How can we return the held territories? There is nobody to return them to. "
“The nation which indulges toward another habitual hatred or habitual fondness is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interests." ~ George Washington
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." ~ Thomas Jefferson
Cheers
'Neta nyahu said yesterday he will continue building in the Je wish enclaves in the We st Ba nk and Ga za St rip.' September 27, 1997
Will he change his position on this, which is a crucial part of the negotiation? I think not.
Will he actively support a two st ate solution without also maintaining I sra el's long standing undermining of Pal est in ian rights with 'evasive pretexts?' Don't think so!
Will he recognize and deal with the duly elected government of the Pa les tin ian people, i.e. Ha mas? Netanbloodylikely!
More likely, he is yet another stop gap in the long standing Isr ae li agenda to acquire its biblical rights to 'the homeland.'
Do i seem biased? Don't mean to be. This is just how it looks to me as far as i can parse the situation. And by the way, it is this article, and your perspective, that appear biased to me. 'President Ob ama must support Net an yahu's plan....' Really? So nice of you to dictate to the leader of the 'free world.''