Soon after becoming
Prime Minister of Israel for a second time in 2009, Benyamin Netanyahu gave a
stirring and quite brilliant speech at Bar Ilan University. It’s brilliance
stemmed from its delivery, content and timing. For the first time he advocated
the two state solution to the Middle East crisis, soon after President Obama
gave a speech in Egypt urging progress to be made on the crisis. And in broad
terms, he gave hope. However, four years later and having been asked by
President Peres to form a second successive government, Prime Minister
Netanyahu seemingly has not managed to move the peace plan forward.
On that summer day in
2009, Mr Netanyahu laid down a vision for bringing about peace in the region
that had at it’s core a surprising element: the recognition of a Palestinian
state. It was, at the time, a significant moment. However, history will
probably judge it as a missed opportunity. The region is no closer to peace and
the feeling of hope and optimism some felt has vanished. With the tide of
support and sentiment having drifted further away from Israel since the
beginning of this century, the Prime Minister’s new vision was bringing Israel
more in-line with the world view. But he placed a number of conditions to
negotiations on the Palestinians that seemed unpalatable to them. Giving up
“Right of Return” for the Palestinian refugees, acceptance of a demilitirised
state and having no control of their own airspace were some of the major
conditions.
The Arab League
condemned the speech, unsurprisingly. The EU and U.S. praised the new Prime
Minister for taking an important step forward. The speech was also criticised
amongst right-wing press in Israel as being too soft and does not “lay down
enough conditions” on the Palestinians. But the Swedish Foreign Minister at the
time, Carl Bildt, may have got to the crux of the matter when he said “whether
what he (Netanyahu) mentioned can be defined as a state is a subject of some
debate.” as quoted by Radio France. But none of this would have surprised Mr
Netanyahu, who would have expected the Arabs to reject his plans and to be
criticised by many others. However, the key was to ensure that his country’s
key ally, the U.S., maintained it’s backing of the state. This he achieved.
That is the cynical
viewpoint, but is it possible that his first term as head of government was
about consolidating power and that his victory now provides us with an optimism
that he can move the two state solution forward? “There is no sign that this
(Netanyahu election) will make a significant difference at all,” says Chris Doyle, Director at The Council for
the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding (Caabu). “He (Netanyahu) is still
committed to the same attitude and policy of expanding settlements.”
The current elections
seem to not have been fought on the lines of peace negotiations either. The
surprise package of the elections was the new Yesh Atid party, led by the
charismatic former television presenter Yair Lapid. With 19 seats in the
Knesset, they are now the second largest party and may have a part to play in
forming the new coalition government. They also represent a different option to
the ruling Likud-Beiteinu alliance or the more right leaning coalition that
currently exists. A centre-left party built on the promise of social reform.
Peace does not feature within their stated agenda and yet this did not hamper
them winning seats. This may indicate that the Israeli populace does not place
much importance in peace with the Palestinians. According to Rabbi Laura
Janner-Klausner from The Movement for Reform Judaism, voters “woke up” and
remembered “the empowering momentum of tent social protests of summer 2011”.
There are too many domestic social issues that take precedence at the moment.
Especially with what is essentially a time of relative safety for Israeli
people.
Whether by design or
accident, the victory of Hamas in Gaza was in fact a victory for Israel, in the
same way that legitimising the PLO and Fatah party was advantageous to them.
Since gaining power in Gaza, Hamas have become a more conventional enemy,
fighting the war as one state against the other. Very few suicide bombings and
guerilla tactics are any longer employed. Since the turn of the century,
Israelis are 40 times more likely to be killed in a car accident than through
conflict. That is a cliched comparison and it shouldn’t belittle a single one
of those deaths. But it does highlight why your man in the street of Tel Aviv
does not prioritise the peace negotiations and why Mr Netanyahu or any
politician may be disincentivised to push peace forward and why Yair Lapid was
so enticing.
The truth is, Israeli
elections are no longer fought on foreign policy. The parties and candidates
are too similar and broadly agree on approach. There appears little willingness
to enter negotiations on an equal footing or to put a stop to the main blocker
in restarting peace talks: namely the continued expansion of settlements. A
recent report by the UN Human Rights Council labelled those settlement
activities as “serious breaches” against humanitarian law. “There has been an
international consensus against the settlements for years.” says Chris
Doyle. “What has been lacking and is still lacking is the political will to do
anything about this. There is no sign that this is going to change.” But the
Palestinian Authority pushing forward its plans for UN recognition is only
forcing the Israeli administration to “create an even more hostile environment
for peace”, there appears little to be optimistic about.
Where we will be in 4
years time when the next elections come round. Logical thought would make one
more inclined to lean towards Chris Doyle’s view that “Whilst it is not
impossible there is nothing to suggest an optimistic scenario”. But with the
surprising outcome of the recent elections and with the Bar Ilan speech playing
in the back of my mind, I am hopeful. But, as Rabbi Laura says, “It's a very
cautious hope for change........a change in which the peace process will
progress”
No comments:
Post a Comment