|
13 March 2011 By Jonathan Cook Benjamin Netanyahu's advisers
conceded last week that the Israeli prime minister is
more downcast than they have ever seen him. The reason
for his gloominess is to be found in Israel's
diplomatic and strategic standing, which some analysts
suggest is at its lowest ebb in living memory. Netanyahu's concern was evident
at a recent cabinet meeting, when he was reported to
have angrily pounded the table. "We are in a very
difficult international arena," the Haaretz newspaper
quoted him telling ministers who wanted to step up
settlement-building. "I suggest we all be cautious." A global survery for Britain's
BBC published on Monday will have only reinforced that
assessment: Israel was rated among the least popular
countries, with just 21 per cent seeing it in a
positive light. A belated realisation by
Netanyahu that he has exhausted international goodwill
almost certainly explains -- if mounting rumours from
his office are to be believed -- his mysterious change
of tack on the peace process. After refusing last year to
continue a partial freeze on settlement-building, a
Palestinian pre-requisite for talks, he is reportedly
preparing to lay out an initiative for the phased
creation of a Palestinian state. Such a move would reflect the
Israeli prime minister's belated recognition that
Israel is facing trouble on almost every front. The most obvious is a rapidly
deteriorating political and military environment in
the region. As upheaval spreads across the Middle
East, Israel is anxiously scouring the neighbourhood
for potential allies. Unwisely, Israel has already
sacrificed its long-standing friendship with Turkey.
With the ousting of Hosni Mubarak, Netanyahu can
probably no longer rely on Egyptian leaders for help
in containing Hamas in Gaza. Israel's nemesis in
Lebanon, the Shia militia Hizbullah, has strengthened
its grip on power. And given the popular mood, Jordan
cannot afford to be seen aiding Israel. Things are no better in the
global arena. According to the Israeli media,
Washington is squarely blaming Netanyahu for the
recent collapse of peace talks with the Palestinians.
It is also holding him
responsible for subsequent developments, particularly
a Palestinian resolution presented to the United
Nations Security Council last month condemning Israeli
settlements. The White House was forced to eat its own
words on the issue of settlements by vetoing the
resolution. The timing of the US veto could
not have been more embarrassing for President Barack
Obama. He was forced to side publicly with Israel
against the Palestinians at a time when the US
desperately wants to calm tensions in the Middle
East. Over the weekend, reports
suggested that Netanyahu had been further warned by US
officials that any peace plan he announces must be
"dramatic". Then, there are the prime
minister's problems with Europe. Netanyahu was
apparently shaken by the response of Angela Merkel,
the German chancellor, when he called to chastise her
for joining Britain and France in backing the
Palestinian resolution at the UN. Instead of
apologising, she is reported to have berated him for
his intransigence in the peace process. Traditionally, Germany has been
Israel's most accommodating European ally. The loss of European support,
combined with US anger, may signal difficulties ahead
for Israel with the Quartet, the international group
also comprising Russia and the United Nations that
oversees the peace process. The Quartet's principals are due
to hold a session next week. Netanyahu's officials are
said to be worried that, in the absence of progress,
the Quartet may lean towards an existing peace plan
along the lines of the Arab League's long-standing
proposal, based on Israel's withdrawal to the 1967
borders. In addition, Israel's already
strained relations with the Palestinian Authority are
likely to deteriorate further in coming months. The PA
has been trying to shore up its legitimacy since the
so-called Palestine Papers were leaked in January,
revealing that its negotiators agreed to large
concessions in peace talks. A first step in damage limitation
was the resolution at the UN denouncing the
settlements. More such moves are likely. Most ominous
for Israel would be a PA decision to carry out its
threat to declare statehood unilaterally at the UN in
September. In that vein, Mahmoud Abbas, the
Palestinian president, said on Saturday that he
expected an independent Palestinian state to become a
permanent member of the UN. The other prospect facing the PA
-- of collapse or being swept away by street protests
-- would be even more disastrous. With the PA gone,
Israel would be forced to directly reoccupy the West
Bank at great financial cost and damage to its
international image. Palestinians could be expected to
launch a civil rights campaign demanding full rights,
including the vote, alongside Israelis. It is doubtless this scenario
that prompted Netanyahu into uncharacteristic comments
last week about the danger facing Israel of sharing a
single "binational state" with the Palestinians,
calling it "disastrous for Israel". Such warnings have
been the stock-in-trade not of the Greater Israel
camp, of which Netanyahu is a leading member, but of
his political opponents on the Zionist left as they
justify pursuing variants of the two-state solution. Netanyahu reportedly intends to
unveil his peace plan during a visit to Washington,
currently due in May. But on Monday Ehud Barak, his
defence minister, added to the pressure by warning
that May was too late. "This is the time to take risks
in order to prevent international isolation," he told
Israel Radio. But, assuming Netanyahu does
offer a peace plan, will it be too little, too late? Few Israeli analysts appear to
believe that Netanyahu has had a real change of heart.
"At this point it's all spin
designed to fend off pressures," Yossi Alpher, a
former director of the Jaffee Centre for Strategic
Studies at Tel Aviv University, wrote for the
Israeli-Palestinian dialogue website Bitterlemons.
"The object of the exercise is to gain a day, or a
week, or a month, before having to come up with some
sort of new spin." Indications are that Netanyahu
will propose a miserly interim formula for a
demilitarised Palestinian state in temporary borders.
The Jerusalem Post reported that in talks with Abbas
late last year Netanyahu demanded that Israel hold on
to 40 per cent of the West Bank for the forseeable
future. His comments on Tuesday that
Israel's "defence line" was the Jordan Valley, a large
swath of the West Bank, that Israel could not afford
to give up suggest he is not preparing to compromise
on his hardline positions. His plan accords with a similar
interim scheme put forward by Avigdor Lieberman,
Netanyahu's far-right foreign minister and chief
political rival on the right. Palestinians insist on a deal on
permanent borders, saying Israel would use anything
less as an opportunity to grab more land in the West
Bank. At the weekend Abbas reiterated his refusal to
accept a temporary arrangement. Herb Keinon, an analyst for the
rightwing Jerusalem Post, observed that there was
"little expectation" from Netanyahu that the
Palestinians would accept his deal. The government
hoped instead, he said, that it would "pre-empt world
recognition of a Palestinian state" inside the 1967
borders. Jonathan Cook is a writer and
journalist based in Nazareth, Israel. His latest books
are "Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran
and the Plan to Remake the Middle East" (Pluto Press)
and "Disappearing Palestine: Israel's Experiments in
Human Despair" (Zed Books). His website is
www.jkcook.net. |
Add Comments