Grounds for Optimism over Middle East Peace

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.

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

Thirdly, settlement building on the occupied territory continues, and there is no sign that it will stop. Netanyahu says that, like previous Israeli governments, he will let existing settlements grow. There have been reports that Netanyahu and 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 in the future. 

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 at the moment. Netanyahu leads an uneasy parliamentary coalition between the centre-left and the far-right, and the PA is both weak and split between Hamas and Fatah, neither of which offer authoritative leaders with vision.

However, I believe that under the surface, there are more reasons for optimism than there seems to be.

Firstly, 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 EU unless it commits to a Palestinian state. President Obama has followed Bush's commitment to a Palestinian state with greater engagement with the region, and some symbolic realignment, such as phoning Abu Mazen 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 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 that since the previous Israeli government did not abide by the Annapolis agreement, Lieberman's explicit dismissal of it is just a change of tone.

The second 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 six per cent did not — and a majority of Palestinians support the Saudi peace plan, involving peace with Israel within its pre-1967 borders.

Thirdly, Netanyahu has a history of being more pragmatic than he sounds. Despite denouncing the Oslo accords in opposition, he accepted them in government. This time, 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." Lieberman, despite opposing the two-state solution in his election campaign, accepted it the week after the election. He now says that 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 that if part of the process meant dismantling settlements, he would leave his home.

Thirdly, Israeli hawks have historically been better at moving towards peace than doves. Begin made peace with Egypt, Sharon left Gaza, Barak — a Labour ex-military hawk — left Lebanon, and Netanyahu gave Palestinians control of Hebron and parts of the West Bank to the Palestinians.

This time round, 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, then Fatah could come out of this year's likely Palestinian legislative elections with an increased majority, strengthening the moderate Palestinian leadership, and so 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.

Azeem Ibrahim is a Research Scholar at International Security Program, Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University and Member of the Dean's International Council at the Harris School of Public Policy, University of Chicago.