jerusalem | Pressed to take a firm stand on the two-state solution, Benjamin Netanyahu’s moment of truth might have come sooner than he wanted.
Despite strong international and domestic pressure, Israel’s prime minister–designate is refusing to come out in support of the idea of two states for two peoples — Israelis and Palestinians — living side by side in peace.
Ever since President George W. Bush outlined his vision of two states in June 2002, the two-state solution has been consensus international policy and the basis for Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Netanyahu’s refusal to reaffirm Israel’s commitment to the two-state principle leaves him out of step with the rest of the international community. It also is likely to cost him the chance of forming a more moderate coalition.
Already the main international players, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, are ratcheting up pressure on Netanyahu to back the two-state idea.
At a meeting in Brussels, European Union foreign ministers insisted that the two-state solution was “the only option.” And in Israel, Kadima Party leader Tzipi Livni has made acceptance of the two-state idea a condition for joining Netanyahu’s coalition.
Even though he very much wants to see Kadima in his government, Netanyahu has made only vague promises to continue peace talks. In messages to world leaders, he has pledged to honor commitments by previous Israeli governments but has omitted any explicit references to Palestinian statehood.
Netanyahu has been very careful in statements to the media when asked about the two-state solution. The obvious reason: He doesn’t want to alienate his hard-line potential coalition partners before he has even a narrow, right-wing government in place.
But his opposition to Palestinian statehood goes much deeper. He is adopting very much the same position he did during his first term as prime minister, from 1996 to 1999. He argued then that in any agreement with Israel, the Palestinian entity would not be allowed to have control over its airspace or border crossing points, raise an army or enter into military pacts with foreign powers.
Netanyahu still holds these positions, which he says are essential for Israel’s security.
While all other Israeli prime ministers have dramatically changed their views on Palestinian statehood in the decade since Netanyahu was last prime minister, Netanyahu himself appears to remain unwavering.
Some observers suggest that his position on Palestinian statehood may only be tactical, designed to earn Israel a better deal at the end of a negotiating process. But holding back on Palestinian statehood when it has been conceded by previous Israeli governments is unlikely to fly.
The stance could well bring Netanyahu into conflict with the United States and European Union. Worse, it could lead to renewed confrontation with the Palestinians.
The same is true of Netanyahu’s attempt to turn back the clock on the issue of West Bank territory. It’s hard to see how Netanyahu could offer the Palestinians only 50 percent of the West Bank when Olmert, Livni and Labor Party leader Ehud Barak all offered well over 90 percent, with land swaps for whatever areas Israel annexes.
It is partly because he realizes the implications of his hard-line positions that Netanyahu so desperately wants Livni and/or Barak in his government. In fact, he held a two-hour meeting March 1 with Barak, whom Netanyahu would like to see continue as defense minister.
Right now, however, Netanyahu is trapped, and in this moment of truth, there is nowhere for him to hide.