Azeem Ibrahim: Grounds for optimism over Middle East peace

Published on Wednesday 15 April 2009 21:57

FOR many of us who want to see progress towards a two-state solution, the swearing-in of Binyamin Netanyahu as Israel's prime minister looks, at first glance, to be the final detail in a very bleak picture.

For a start, he is a nationalist right-winger. He will not commit to a two-state solution. He sees the conflict solely through the lens of Israeli security. He seems to believe that whatever Israel offers, the Palestinians will always want more. And some report that his desired solution to the conflict is a Palestinian polity without the right to maintain an army or sign military alliances, whose airspace and border crossings are controlled by Israel.

Second, he is in coalition with Yisrael Beitenu, a party of ultra-nationalists, led by Avigdor Lieberman, who lives in a settlement on occupied land. He has talked about drowning Palestinian prisoners in the Dead Sea. And he has said Israel is not bound by the Annapolis agreement. He is now Israel's foreign minister.

Third, settlement building on the occupied territory continues and there is no sign that it will stop. Mr Netanyahu says that, like previous Israeli governments, he will let existing settlements grow. There have been reports that Mr Netanyahu and Mr Lieberman plan 3,000 new houses on the West Bank settlement of Ma'aleh Adumim. That would make the settlement contiguous with Jerusalem, preventing Palestinian construction between East Jerusalem and Ramallah, and making it hard for the two sides to agree on permanent borders.

More fundamentally, even if his current government and the Palestinian leadership were ever able to agree on a final status to resolve the conflict, it is unlikely that either would be strong enough to make it stick. Mr Netanyahu leads an uneasy parliamentary coalition between the centre-left and the far-right, and the Palestinian Authority is both weak and split between Hamas and Fatah, neither of which offer authoritative leaders with vision.

However, I believe, under the surface, there are reasons for optimism. First, two significant forces are pushing the two sides towards a two-state solution.

The first is international opinion. Diplomats from at least ten European countries, including those traditionally sympathetic to Israel such as the Czech Republic, have told the Israeli government that it can forget about upgrading relations with the European Union unless it commits to a Palestinian state. US president Barack Obama has followed George Bush's commitment to a Palestinian state with greater engagement with the region, and some symbolic realignment, such as phoning Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas before any other foreign leader.

His time learning about the conflict from pro-Palestinian academic Rashid Khalidi has persuaded some that he understands the Palestinian cause. And Mr Lieberman makes many American Jews uncomfortable about the direction of the Jewish state; "I feel," wrote one, "as if my spouse had cheated on me with Mussolini." Even the head of the Arab League has said since the previous Israeli government did not abide by the Annapolis agreement, Mr Lieberman's explicit dismissal of it is just a change of tone.

The second reason for optimism is Israeli and Palestinian public opinion. Although the Gaza war has increased support on both sides for violence, it has not changed the fact that most people in Israel and Palestine want a two-state solution. A majority of Israelis voted for parties who want an eventual Palestinian state – only 6 per cent did not – and a majority of Palestinians support the Saudi peace plan, involving peace with Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

Third, Mr Netanyahu has a history of being more pragmatic than he sounds. When asked directly whether he wanted a Palestinian state, he refused to say either yes or no, replying: "The Palestinians should have the ability to govern their lives, but not to threaten ours." Mr Lieberman, despite opposing the two-state solution in his election campaign, accepted it the week after the election. He now says he opposed Annapolis only because it unrealistically jumped straight to final status talks, but he wants to follow the road map instead, which calls for step-by-step, reciprocal progress. He has also said if part of the process meant dismantling settlements, he would leave his home.

Also, Israeli hawks have historically been better at moving towards peace than doves. Menachem Begin made peace with Egypt, Ariel Sharon left Gaza, Ehud Barak – a Labour former military hawk – left Lebanon, and Mr Netanyahu gave Palestinians control of Hebron and parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians.

This time round, Mr Netanyahu says he will personally oversee a government committee to improve the West Bank economy. If it works, and Palestinians in the West Bank feel the improvement, Fatah could come out of this year's likely Palestinian legislative elections with an increased majority, strengthening the moderate Palestinian leadership and improving its ability to actually implement any negotiated agreement it might make.

An engaged US, an understanding that peace relies on a strong PA, and a government and public less opposed to peace than they seem, all add up to a picture that is not as bleak as many have argued.

&#149 Azeem Ibrahim is a research scholar at Harvard University's International Security Programme and a director/ policy board member of the UK National Defence Association