Netanyahu’s foreign policy keynote speech – No progress in the peace process: instead, old wine in new bottles

by Dr. Ralf Hexel, FES Israel June 26, 2009

1. Since Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, Benjamin Netanyahu has been under major political pressure. He must decide whether he wants to be a partner on the road to a two-state solution with the Palestinians, or rejects such a develop-ment.

2. The foreign policy keynote address at Bar-Ilan University is Netanyahu’s answer: he uses new peace rhetoric as packaging for the old intransigence about the final-status questions: no end to settlement activities, and no division of Jerusalem.

3. The great majority of the population, and practically all of Israel’s political parties, support Netanyahu’s positions. The rightward shift in Israeli society that became clear in the February Knesset elections is reflected in the mani- festo embodied in this speech.

4. The Arab world and the Palestinians reject the speech as unacceptable. President Obama indicated his satisfaction, but called for further steps, while in the EU and its member countries, skepticism and criticism predominated.

5. In the short term, the speech is a political success for Netanyahu. The population and government in Israel are resolutely behind him, the relations with the USA have calmed down. But the speech is in no way an offer to negotiate with the Palestinians in order to try to achieve peace.

In the speech to the Muslim world that Hamas to turn its back on violence and Barack Obama gave in Cairo on June to recognize Israel. He made it clear 4, there was not the slightest indication that, unlike his predecessor George of doubt that for the US President, Bush Jr., the Middle East conflict was peace in the Middle East can only be right at the top of his political agenda. achieved in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process via the two-state solu- Since Barack Obama’s Cairo speech, tion. As a result, he called upon Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has been under – as a first step in this direction – to considerable political pressure. This completely halt all settlement activities applies both to the relationship with in the West Bank. He called upon the USA, Israel’s most important ally

1 and friend, and also on a domestic anticipated. The venue was carefully political level in respect of his right- selected, and was designed to make it wing coalition partners and his own clear with whom Netanyahu wishes to Likud party’s right wing, led by be compared: Menachem Begin and Benjamin Begin, Menachem Begin’s Anwar Sadat, who in 1979 negotiated son. While President Obama is keen the historic conclusion of peace bet- to see concrete steps and results ween Egypt and Israel. leading to a two-state solution soon, Netanyahu’s allies reject concessions to the Palestinians and their Arab Peace rhetoric but intransigence neighbors, instead arguing for a over the end-status questions continuation of the settlement policy and the non-recognition of the two- Netanyahu began his speech with the state solution. Netanyahu is faced with warning that the greatest danger for the option of becoming the US Israel, the Middle East, and the world Administration’s partner along the as a whole emanates from Iran, given peace solution route, or pursuing a the threat posed by that country, with a conflicting policy. combination of radical Islam and nuclear weapons. He then went in detail into the Israeli-Palestinian Political balancing act between relationship, and made the offer to Washington and Jerusalem begin immediately with bilateral negotiations without preconditions. This constellation requires a political With regard to the core issues of the balancing act. Netanyahu knows that peace process, the end-status ques- no Israeli prime minister can in the tions, he made the following state- long run refuse to steer a political ments, putting into words his own course set by Washington. If he takes clearly expressed conditions. genuine steps in the direction of a two- state solution, it is very likely that his government coalition will break up. If 1) Two-state solution: he does not, he risks a conflict with the Netanyahu had previously refused to USA and growing political pressure make the two-state solution a policy from Washington. But President goal, instead always talking about Obama is also running a not inconsi- “economic peace” as a prerequisite for derable risk. His Cairo speech gene- what might later perhaps be a possible rated major expectations, both in the political peace. Now, for the first time Arab world and among the Palestini- since assuming office, he used the ans. Henceforth these expectations, formula of a “demilitarized Palestinian as well as his political credibility, will state” side by side with Israel. As far be judged by concrete changes and on as he is concerned, the prerequisite the spot results. However, Obama has for this consists of the following two limited influence only on the achieving conditions: a) clear guarantees for de- of these changes, because to this end militarization and for Israel’s security he needs partners in the region. On needs, and b) recognizing Israel as the the Israeli side, until further notice this state of the Jewish people. partner is called Benjamin Netanyahu. 2) Jerusalem’s future: On June 14, precisely ten days after “Jerusalem must remain the undivided Obama’s speech in Cairo, Netanyahu capital of Israel.” With this statement, gave an address at Bar-Ilan Univer- Netanyahu makes it impossible for sity’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Jerusalem to also be the capital of a Studies. His keynote speech on his future Palestinian State. government’s future policy in the Middle East peace process was keenly

2 3) Settlements: Broad-based support in Israel On the immediate stop to all settlement activities called for by Two days after the speech, the President Obama, Netanyahu simply Haaretz left-wing liberal newspaper said, “We do not intend to build new published the results of a survey about settlements or expropriate land for how the Israeli population had reacted new settlements.” In this way he made to Netanyahu’s speech. These showed it clear that he is not willing to that 71% of Israelis agreed with his renounce the expansion of existing statements. He has the support of just settlements, in other words what is 49% of the supporters of Tzipi Livni’s called “natural growth.” He put his opposition Kadima party. In his own support for the settlers on record by party, the Likud, 90% of members saying that they are “not enemies of agree with his speech. In the popu- peace.” The speech does not contain lation, after the speech, his rating shot any notice of the evacuation of existing up by 16%, to 44% approval. settlements or outposts. At the same time, the mass-circulation 4) Refugee question: newspaper Israel Hayom reported that Ruling out in advance any kind of 58% were against the stop to negotiations on this question, he called construction in the settlements upon the Arabs to solve the demanded by the USA, and that 63% Palestinian refugee problem the same did not believe that a peace way that Israel did previously by agreement could be achieved with the absorbing Jewish refugees from the Palestinians. This is the reason why Arab countries. He went on to say, the great majority of Israelis support “Therefore justice and logic dictate that the conditions stated by Netanyahu for the problem of the Palestinian peace and for the creation of a refugees must be solved outside the Palestinian State. His speech reflected borders of the State of Israel.” a wide-ranging consensus in Israeli society: the people want peace, but Netanyahu embedded this position on after the failure of the Oslo process, the final status issues in a very mode- the violence of the second Intifada, rate tone, referring time and time again and Hamas’ rocket bombardment from to peace. He began his speech with the Gaza Strip, they have lost any the word peace, and then used it belief that peace is actually possible. another forty times, and concluded the In Israeli society, willingness and speech with it. The question, however, hence the ability to enter into the is whether in practice this openness to compromises needed to conclude peace is really an offer of peace to the peace with the Palestinians are in Palestinians that should be taken decline. Netanyahu is picking up on seriously, and whether it can stand up this atmosphere and tendency. He can to the demanding comparison with the count on solid backing in the courageous peace accord between population if he refuses to stop sett- Begin and Sadat exactly thirty years lement activities and to divide Jerusa- ago. Or instead, did he not in this lem as a capital with the Palestinians. speech above all repeat the positions In the meanwhile, a majority of Israelis that he had presented earlier, which have come to believe that only the now, in light of the strong pressure Israeli Right with its intransigent from Washington and a changed positions can undertake promising regional dynamic; he was simply peace negotiations, while the Left selling in new packing, just like old does not understand the language of wine in new bottles? the Middle East. Netanyahu’s speech constitutes a clearly worded political pro-gram for the rightward shift in Israeli society which became clear

3 during the Knesset elections held this Netanyahu’s speech. Chief negotiator February. Saeb Erekat said that even in a thousand years, the Arabs would not Another reason why the speech went recognize Israel as a Jewish state. down so well in Israel is its ostensibly Yasser Abed Rabo, secretary of the moderate tone and its constant PLO executive committee, called repetition of a call for peace, while at Netanyahu a liar and cheat. However the same time the Palestinians are understandable the negative reaction presented as those who are of leading Palestinians, they need to responsible for the repeated failure to consider what their own outlook is, and achieve peace. what practical counter-proposals they can offer to Netanyahu’s policy. The But not only had the population app- Palestinian leadership is also lauded Netanyahu for his speech. The confronted by the challenge of representatives of practically all of developing realistic policy goals and Israel’s political parties – with the following new paths. exception of the Arab ones – also welcomed it. Neither opposition leader Thus Abdallah Frangi, for example, for Tzipi Livni nor representatives of the many years the PLO’s representative Labour Party voiced any criticism. in Germany and now head of Fatah’s They all basically agreed with the foreign policy division, analyzes positions that Netanyahu put into Netanyahu’s speech in a rather more words. Public criticism was expressed discriminating fashion in a contribu- by just a few representatives of the tion to the Süddeutsche Zeitung . Left and critical intellectuals, such as Overall, he called it bluff, but admitted former Meretz chairman Yossi Sarid or that the magic words “Palestinian writer David Grossman. Sarid confir- state” had been uttered. Nevertheless, med Netanyahu’s failure, and called he continued, the speech was the speech a “hesitant, tortuous, and unacceptable. For him and the fearful vision of a future,” with which Palestinians, given the fact that Israel the goal of a “Palestinian state” could has over 20% Arab citizens, both never be achieved. Muslims and Christians, the formula of the “Jewish character” of the Israeli state is unacceptable. The same No Jewish state even in 1000 years applies to the statements about Jerusalem. To unilaterally declare the The reactions in the Arab world were Holy City, one of the trickiest subjects all, without exception, negative. for negotiation, the “eternal and Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak is undivided capital of the State of Israel” quoted as follows: “Nobody in Egypt or is not acceptable to any Palestinian elsewhere can accept Netanyahu’s leadership. And while the settlements demand to recognize Israel as the make any idea of a viable state of their state of the Jews.” Whereupon own impossible for the Palestinians, Netanyahu, according to reports, for Netanyahu the settlers are not an immediately called Mubarak in order to obstacle on the path to peace. explain the content of the speech to Negotiations solely about the desire him. And the Jordanian newspaper Al- for peace, but on unacceptable terms, Arab Al-Yawm wrote that the definition said Frangi, are not a step in the right of Israel as a Jewish state indicated direction. the intention to drive one and a half million Palestinians (meaning the Palestinians in Israel, R.H.) into exile. Obama satisfied, Europe skeptical

The leading PLO representatives Barack Obama reacted in a guardedly vehemently and unanimously rejected positive fashion to Netanyahu’s

4 speech. He said, “I thought that there “This was a first and important step in was positive movement in the prime the direction of the two-state solution.“ minister's speech,” and went on to Overall, the EU states disagree about observe that he saw the possibility of upgrading ties with Israel. Thus for restarting serious peace talks. He example the Czech Republic, Ger- repeated the necessity of halting the many, Romania and Italy favor such building of settlements, but at the an upgrade, while Belgium, Sweden, same time called upon the Portugal, and Ireland are opposed to Palestinians to comply with their any such step as long as Israel does obligations in order to advance the not stop building settlements and does peace process. A White House not relax the sanctions on the Gaza spokesman also announced, “The Strip. president believes that there’s a long way to go and many twists and turns in No willingness to make the road to get there, but is pleased compromises thus far with the progress that’s being made, and I think yester-day’s speech If Netanyahu’s statements on the indi- certainly is a big part of that.” vidual final-status questions are exa- mined in substance, it becomes clear The reactions from Europe sounded that he has in fact accommodated the very different from this moderately Palestinians on just one point. By positive assessment from Washington. using the formula of a “demilitarized On the very day following Netanyahu’s Palestinian state,” he has for the first speech, the EU foreign ministers met time recognized that an independent in Luxembourg in order to take a Palestinian state must be an integral decision on upgrading ties with Israel. part of a Middle East peace process. Following the Gaza war at the At the same time, however, while beginning of the year, this cooperation offering to initiate talks without was put on ice and was due to be preconditions, he has laid down discussed again. The EU is making its conditions on the issue of Jerusalem, decision dependent on progress in the the settlements, and the refugee Israeli-Palestinian peace process. question which make it very difficult for Although the foreign ministers the Palestinians to react positively to considered Netanyahu’s speech to be the speech and to accept it as a basis a “step in the right direction,” they for starting negotiations. At the decided that the statements made beginning of his speech, Netanyahu were not sufficient and called for compared himself with Begin and additional Israeli measures. The Anwar el-Sadat. But unlike these two Swedish foreign minister, Carl Bildt – men, he is not – or not yet? – prepared Sweden is due to assume the EU and capable of going to his negotiating presidency on July 1 – expressed partners and offering them genuine doubts as to whether what Netanyahu compromises. He does not see the had described could be called a state. settlements as an obstacle to peace, Italy’s foreign minister, Franco Frat- and claims Jerusalem as an undivided tini, was bothered that Netanyahu did capital for Israel. He will not in this way not mention a halt to settlements and achieve the peace referred to so often called Jerusalem the united capital of in his speech. Israel. Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, also expressed himself Moreover, Netanyahu’s speech con- cautiously: “The fact that for the first tains no references whatsoever to the time a Likud government has officially peace initiative proposed by the Arab acknowledged the two-state solution is League in 2002, which in respect of its a step in the right direction.” German essential features has in the Chancellor Angela Merkel said in meanwhile also received the support Berlin about Netanyahu’s speech, of the USA, and could provide a

5 possible basis for a peace solution for population and almost all the political Netanyahu. The latter is refuting the forces of his country. His government new regional dynamic bound up with is behind him, and he has managed to the Arab peace initiative, and instead reassure the USA for the time being. is continuing to bank on a bilateral In his reaction to the speech, Barack negotiation process between Israelis Obama also made it clear that he now and Palestinians. However, following expects concrete measures from the the failure of the Oslo process, the Israelis. Netanyahu gave a speech in violence of the second Intifada, the which he referred time and time again lack of results from Annapolis, and to peace and for the first time lastly the Gaza war, there can hardly conceded a state of their own to the be any doubt that the Israelis and Palestinians. However, he did not Palestinians on their own are not make them a single new negotiating capable of achieving peace Their offer toward peace. Probably, conflict is part of the Middle East however, they were in any case not his conflict, and can only be solved on a addressees, who were first and regional basis. The regional starting foremost the US president, Israel’s point of the Arab peace initiative opens population, and the Jewish community a very promising path for such a in the USA. solution. Thus Netanyahu has overcome the The crux of this initiative involves the first hurdle. But now comes the next, twenty-two member countries of the far harder step: turning this speech Arab League offering Israel peace and into practical policy. Then he will have diplomatic recognition in return for to take decisions, such as on the withdrawal from the Palestinian terri- evacuation of what are called the tories occupied since 1967. Additional “illegal settlement outposts.” Not only central points in the plan entail the the USA and the European partners creation of a Palestinian state with are urging this: in 2003 Israel itself East Jerusalem as its capital, and a committed to doing so when it agreed “just solution” to the refugee problem. to the road map. It will then become So far, Israel has consistently rejected clear where Netanyahu’s priorities lie: this initiative. The main argument was with the stability of the existing that the refugees’ return would destroy coalition, or with the relationship to the the Israeli state’s Jewish character, USA. If a crisis were to develop in his making the Jews a minority in their government and with the Likud right own country. This, however, ignores wing, Netanyahu would have the the initiative’s new and creative option of including Kadima or parts of element. Un-like all the other it in his coalition. approaches, it no longer demands the unconditional right of return, but a “just The reactions from Washington and solution” for the refugees – which Brussels show that the previous would make compensation payments differences when it comes to dealing possible. with Israel – criticism from Europe and understanding from the USA – clearly no longer exist. Right now, the Ame- Conclusion ricans’ and Europeans’ positions on dealing with Israel are very similar. In the short term, the speech is a This is a new situation. political success for Netanyahu. The preconditions for creating a Palestinian The reactions from Washington and state defined by him – demilitarization Europe also show that in the weeks to and recognizing Israel as a Jewish come, Israel’s settlement policy will state – are supported by the probably be at the center of political overwhelming majority of the attention. Netanyahu has intimated

6 that he is willing to risk conflict with the Middle East, as cited by Israel’s USA over this question. He knows that Maariv daily. “Our policy is simple. The Obama is also under pressure to suc- Israelis have lied to us all the time in ceed, and needs him in order to the past years, but this is over now.” achieve progress. He will try to make the best possible use of this leeway. In In the coming weeks and months, it doing so, he will put forward the broad will become clear how serious the support of Israel’s population as well Americans are about this new policy. as almost all its political forces as a But right now it’s up to Netanyahu. weighty argument. What might per- Following his speech, he has to adopt haps await him is expressed in the concrete measures. The first thing following blunt words by George expected of him will be substantial Mitchell, Obama’s special envoy to the steps on the settlement question.

Contact: Annette Lohmann, tel. +49-30-26-935-7423, email: [email protected] Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, International Development Cooperation, Near/Middle East and North Africa Division, Hiroshimast. 17, 10785 Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany For the downloadable background report, as well as information about the work of the FES in the region, go to http://www.fes.de/nahost

7