clear

Creating new perspectives since 2009

More questions about whether a two-state solution is still possible, or even desirable

January 23, 2014 at 7:37 am

Naftali Bennett was, in many ways, the star of Israel’s last election campaign. The politician, who heads up the Jewish Home party, was the embodiment of the new breed of settler politicians: educated, urbane, but packing no punches about his extreme right-wing, nationalist views.

That was in evidence last week, when Bennett, who has been appointed economics and trade minister in Benjamin Netanyahu’s coalition cabinet, made a speech dismissing hopes for a two-state solution. Addressing a conference of settlers, held in Jerusalem, he said of plans for a Palestinian state: “Never have so many people invested so much energy in something that is hopeless.” Advocating a course of action that directly contravenes official government policy, he suggested that “Area C”, the area of the West Bank under Israeli control (constituting 62 per cent) should be annexed “as quickly as possible”.


He added: “The most important thing in the land of Israel is to build, build, build. It’s important that there will be an Israeli presence everywhere. This land has been ours for 3,000 years. There was never a Palestinian state here and we were never occupiers. The house is ours and we are residents here, not the occupiers.”

Bennett’s views are extreme and ultra-nationalist, but they are not surprising. In his speech he was essentially reiterating statements he made during the election campaign, saying that “a Palestinian state within Israel is not possible”, so “we have to move from solving the problem to living with the problem”. Many commentators have taken issue in particular with an analogy he used of a friend who had shrapnel lodged in his buttock, comparing the decision to surgically remove the shrapnel with the decision to live with a Palestinian presence in the West Bank. Over at Al Monitor, Shlomi Eldar points out that there would be outrage if such language had been used the other way around.

Nor is Bennett the only minister to express such views. In an interview two weeks ago, deputy defence minister Danny Danon suggested that a majority within the Israeli government strongly opposed the idea of a Palestinian state. “If there will be a move to promote a two-state solution, you will see forces blocking it within the party and the government,” he said. The week before that, defence minister Moshe Ya’alon said that the Arab peace initiative was “spin”.

The views of these politicians are already a matter of public record, and were well known before they were brought into the cabinet. The main reason that this particular speech of Bennett’s, and recent comments by other politicians, has caused such a stir is the timing.

The US Secretary of State John Kerry is currently in the midst of a push to restart direct negotiations for a two-state solution. Privately, all sides acknowledge the negotiations are in trouble, but the US and the EU remain committed to the process. Against the context of efforts by Israel’s biggest ally to restart the floundering peace talks – which has been stalled more or less since December 2008 – the comments have struck a political and diplomatic nerve.

Netanyahu, speaking to Reuters, dismissed Bennett’s views as irrelevant, saying: “Foreign policy is shaped by the prime minister and my view is clear. I will seek a negotiated settlement where you’d have a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state.” Officials from the prime minister’s office have stressed that the government is a coalition and that Bennett’s views were already well known, and differ from government policy.

However, while Netanyahu has distanced himself from Bennett’s words, it must be questioned how far he is actually committed to a two-state solution. In recent years, he has talked the talk on seeking a Palestinian state, but has done very little to further this goal in practice. Under his watch, settlement building – widely considered to be the biggest barrier to a Palestinian state – has expanded, and he pledged that if he was re-elected this year, not a single settlement would be dismantled.

For their part, the Palestinian Authority has positioned itself on the side of the American negotiations, and has criticised Bennett’s comments. Chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said that Bennett had “officially declared the death of the two-state solution” and that the Israeli government was “determined to make Kerry’s efforts fail”. Spokesman Nabil Abu Rudeineh added: “These statements are not only a message to US President Barack Obama’s administration, which is exerting continuous efforts to revive the peace process … [but] dangerous and destructive statements that stand against everyone who believes in the two-state solution”.

While Bennett’s views may have been expressed objectionably, many on both sides of the conflict are questioning whether a two-state solution is still possible, or even desirable. Many experts and activists have argued that the Palestinians should move towards demanding a single state with equal rights for all its citizens, as settlements have made a proper Palestinian state unviable. The sad fact is, though, that either two states, or one state that is acceptable to both sides, are both impossible dreams when reactionary and uncompromising politicians are leading the way.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.