Instead of listening to Binyamin Netanyahu's long-awaited speech on 14 June, Barack Obama chose to spend the day playing golf. Nothing could better illustrate the nature of the relationship between Israel's prime minister and the American president. The two are now bitter adversaries. That is clear for all to see. Their respective visions of a Middle East peace settlement are plainly contradictory. But whereas Netanyahu is anxious and defensive, Obama is relaxed. He knows that time is on his side. These are early days in the battle of wills. It is a most unequal battle. Netanyahu will dig in his heels. He will move heaven and earth to mobilise his American allies against Obama. In Israel itself, fanatical settlers and other champions of a ‘Greater Israel' will defame the American president, depicting him in their posters as an ‘Anti-Semitic Jew-hater.' But, in the end, the balance of power is such that Netanyahu will almost certainly be compelled to bend to the will of the American president -- or leave office. Indeed, some in Washington believe that Obama plans, by gradually increasing the pressure, if not to oust Netanyahu altogether, then to force him to drop the extreme right and bring Tzipi Livni's centre-right Kadima into his coalition. The new coalition might then be ready to accept a two-state solution -- indeed, the comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace -- which Obama has pledged to bring about. In his speech last Sunday, Netanyahu managed, just once, to force himself to utter the hated words ‘Palestinian state', but they were so hedged about with restrictions as to make them virtually meaningless. Nevertheless, Obama generously welcomed this ‘step forward', with the plain implication that bolder steps in the same direction could not long be avoided. Netanyahu now has his back to the wall. Rarely in recent decades have Israel's relations with Washington been so tense. Never since the early 1960s, when JFK was in the White House, has Israel felt such anxiety about the relationship with its superpower patron, a relationship so vital to its well-being and existence. Like any negotiator with a weak hand, Netanyahu has begun by stating his maximalist terms. He has put forward no fewer than seven conditions for the Palestinians – and for Obama – to accept, before he will even consider moving towards the goal of Palestinian statehood. The following are his conditions: · The future Palestinian state must be demilitarised – without an army, without control of its airspace, without the ability to conclude military pacts with anyone, and with real monitoring to prevent weapons smuggling. In other words, Israel alone has the right to defend itself: the Palestinians must remain at its mercy. · The Palestinians must ‘clearly and unambiguously recognise Israel as the state of the Jewish people.' This provision discriminates openly against the Arab citizens of Israel, and robs the Palestinian refugees – those driven out of Palestine in 1947-8 and their descendants – of any legitimate claim against Israel. · Israel must have ‘defensible borders.' Netanyahu did not state where inside surrounding Arab territory he believed they should be traced! · Jerusalem must remain ‘the united capital of Israel.' This is a claim no Palestinian, and indeed no Muslim, can willingly accept. · ‘The Palestinian refugee problem will be resolved outside Israel's borders.' Netanyahu thus totally rejects the Palestinians' ‘right of return', even of token numbers; he does not recognise any Palestinian claim to what he calls ‘the homeland of the Jewish people'; and he does not even mention the word compensation. · On the crucial matter of illegal Jewish settlements on the West Bank, Netanyahu failed to mention a ‘freeze', still less did he promise to dismantle the proliferating outposts. He did say that ‘we have no intention of building new settlements or of expropriating additional land for existing settlements,' adding, however, that ‘there is a need to enable the residents to live normal lives.' This phrase has been widely interpreted to mean that he intends to continue building within settlement boundaries -- what has been called ‘natural growth', a notion Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton have both explicitly rejected. · Netanyahu's final condition was that the Palestinian Authority must ‘overcome Hamas.' In other words, he is calling for renewed inter-Palestinian warfare. Not surprisingly, the Palestinians -- and the Arab world generally -- have angrily dismissed Netanyahu's speech as a further nail in the coffin of peace. But they should not despair. They should remember that this is only the start of what promises to be a long drawn-out battle between the Israeli prime minister and the American president. Without resorting to real sanctions – like reducing financial aid or delaying deliveries of military equipment -- there is a great deal Obama can do to cause Netanyahu to think again. The ‘special relationship' could begin to suffer. A degree of coolness could creep in. Israel could lose automatic American backing in the UN Security Council. It might begin to be treated like any other American ally in the Middle East. It might no longer enjoy the privilege of prior consultation – as seems already to be happening. Indeed, Israel was not shown Obama's Cairo speech before it was delivered, which is probably the first breach of the pledge Henry Kissinger, then Secretary of State, gave Israel in 1975, to consult with Israel before the U.S. made any peace move. But there will be carrots as well as sticks. The U.S. is understood to be putting together a major security package to persuade Israel that a Palestinian state and peace with its neighbours are together the best guarantees of Israel's future. The package is expected to contain formal U.S. guarantees of Israel's security, promises of financial and military support, as well as the despatch of an international force to patrol Israel's borders, and train Palestinian security forces in cooperation with Israel. Whatever is necessary will be done to persuade the Israeli public that the time has come to change course. It will not be easy for Israelis to grasp that their past leaders made two serious mistakes. The first was the land-grab in the occupied territories which started in 1967, and continues to this day. The second was the doctrine that Israel's security lies, not in making peace with its neighbours, but in dominating the entire region militarily. For various reasons – the emergence of militant non-state actors like Hizballah and Hamas, the rise of Iran as a regional power, the dangers of nuclear proliferation, and other changes in Israel's strategic environment -- these positions are no longer acceptable. The present generation of Israelis is being called upon to correct them. That is the essence of Obama's message, and that is the problem with which Netanyahu has to wrestle. end
