When John Kerry, the US secretary of state, attempted to restart the stalled Israel-Palestine peace process, he set a deadline of April 2014 for an agreement. That deadline is fast approaching, and an agreement remains out of reach.
The pressure is on. In an interview with Bloomberg this week, the president, Barack Obama, issued a warning to Israel’s policymakers that now is the time to get serious: “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”
Obama, who called for “tough decisions” to salvage peace talks, was speaking ahead of a visit to the US by the Israeli premier, Benjamin Netanyahu.
During Netanyahu’s visit, he made a speech to the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), Washington’s most prominent pro-Israel lobby.
Predictably, he spent much of his speech talking about Iran and its nuclear programme. But he also turned his attention to the peace process. “I’m prepared to make an historic peace with our Palestinian neighbours,” he reiterated. He added that Israel is particularly keen to secure a peace deal because it wants improved, robust relationships with Arab states that would lead to economic benefits for the region – such as breakthroughs on energy and technology. He hinted that behind the scenes cooperation already exists, saying that he would like an “open” relationship between Israel and its Sunni neighbours (who share a suspicion of Iran).
Writing in the Haaretz newspaper, Barak Ravid suggests that Netanyahu’s speech should be a serious concern for the newly powerful settler caucus in the Knesset. The cause for concern, he says, is that the prime minister stressed these benefits of peace, and used “leftist” language. “With this address, Netanyahu continued his very slow but steady move toward the Israeli center; toward those 65 percent of Israelis who support a division of the land but are skeptical about the ability to realize that vision,” writes Ravid.
But of course, critics would argue that Netanyahu was merely paying lip service to the idea of peace. Palestinian officials certainly did not hear the speech as a breakthrough moment: Fatah central committee member Nabil Shaath said afterwards that Netanyahu’s speech was “an official announcement of a unilateral end to negotiations”. The section he took issue with was the Israeli prime minister’s demand that Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas “recognize the Jewish state” and [tell] the Palestinians to abandon the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees”. This comes back to the same old question of the right of return for Palestinians overseas: it has been a sticking point for past peace negotiations, and it will continue to be so. Netanyahu was also pugnacious on the subject of a peacekeeping force to enforce the terms of a peace deal, ruling out a role for any international force.
If there was little evidence of movement on these key issues, the speech did demonstrate Netanyahu’s growing anxiety about the boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement. He dedicated around seven minutes of his speech to it, more attention than any Israeli leader has paid to the movement before in a major address. He branded those who boycott Israel and ignore the human rights violations of their neighbours as bigots, saying unequivocally that this special treatment was “the latest chapter in the long and dark history of anti-Semitism”.
There is little in the words of Netanyahu’s speech to merit the concern for right-wing settler politicians that Ravid mentions. It is not the first time that the prime minister has spoken of his desire for peace, or for his dedication to the idea of a Palestinian state. Settlements in the West Bank are the main stumbling block for peace, and the fact remains that settlement construction more than doubled in 2013 (according to a recent Israeli government report). As the deadline for a peace agreement approaches, the international pressure will continue to mount. Clearly, Netanyahu is concerned about this international pressure – and about the tide of public opinion – but it does not appear he is concerned enough to make those tough decisions that Obama has demanded.
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Monitor.