The Middle East quagmire is so riddled in encrypted messages that it’s time to call things by their real name.
Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu did not offer a route toward a Palestinian state. He merely bought himself some time before he has to choose between appeasing his right-wing coalition or the United States.
And U.S. President Barack Obama did not offer a landmark policy shift in his Cairo speech. He just chose to enforce (and would be the first to do so) a decades-old, uncontroversial consensus on settlement expansion in order to break the stalemate.
And both leaders know that at stake is not just Palestine (which, incidentally, Netanyahu failed to name), but Iran’s existential feud with Israel for Middle East supremacy. The back-to-back, rhetoric-full, speeches were really the opening moves of a brilliant game that is far from over. And here’s how it is laid out:
Without a peace agreement that involves Palestine, the Israel-Iran pulse will inevitably lead to war drawing in other global powers, including the US and Saudi Arabia. Both Tehran and Tel Aviv truly believe their survival depends on the other’s demise. And both have good reason to.
Israel has the only nuclear arsenal in the region. Iran would love one, but its leaders so far appear unwilling, or at least unconvinced, they want to be the next North Korea-like pariah, if nothing else because China and Russia would switch sides. Tehran’s intent seems to be mastering nuclear technology and probably stashing enough enriched uranium to enable them to, if need-be, quickly build a deliverable warhead to Israel, to even things out a bit.
But for the time being, neither side can claim supremacy simply because nuclear weapons are as self-destructive today as they were during the Cold War. On the other hand, Iran has become a credible threat to Israel, which is feeling more threatened, even if it is unlikely the Islamic Republic would make the first move because Israel is still superior militarily and
will retain its proportional deterrent at any cost.
Therefore, Israel needs an unconditional ally in the US more than ever. But that has a price and it’s Palestine.
Meanwhile, Arab countries are stuck in the middle, not just geographically. They mistrust both Israel and Iran. And by definition, Arab capitals can’t sit idle while the two foes lock them in a no-win situation. It’s a question of their own survival.
The US of course has known this for decades, but Iran’s threat wasn’t as pressing as it is today. Arabs led by Riyadh, on the other hand, have long warned Washington that they were miscalculating the quagmire. And now, it is no longer a simple question of Palestine. This fire has been burning for so long that putting off one corner is insufficient. It has to be a regional
approach.
Ergo, the Arab peace offering to Israel. An Israeli withdrawal to 1967 borders - as mandated under the Geneva Convention - will put out fires raging in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and more importantly suffocate the raison d’etre of hardliners in Tehran. But Israel will not accept this without US pressure, which brings us back to the new game plan.
Obama moved first. Considering US internal politics, he chose the settlement issue because it is the only that he can possibly rally support for. The US has opposed settlement expansion for decades, ever since Lyndon Johnson; Republican and Democrats agree, along with most Jewish-Americans and parts of Israel’s left and center. Among other things because it doesn’t threaten Israel’s security.
Obama knows Netanyahu cannot deliver on this issue. Netanyahu is an extremely weak leader, both within and outside Israel. If he budges on the settlements, his coalition falls apart (Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman lives in a West Bank settlement.)
But if he doesn’t accept freezing expansion as a precondition to re-launch the broader peace process, as Obama demanded, then the US president gets the crisis with Israel he wants. Israel’s left and center will not risk US-Israeli relations, nor will American-Jews, because doing so means risking US support on a range of issues, from Iran to Palestine.
In other words, Obama cornered Netanyahu into choosing between his religious right-wing coalition and a Palestinian state in-line with the long-held Arab position. In so doing, he not only makes peace with Muslims, regardless of what Netanyahu decides to do, but he also weakens the radical, Iranian-backed proxy militias Hamas and Hezbollah. (A pressing issue now that Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a commanding victory in the presidential
elections.)
Netanyahu loses in any case. His survival as prime minister depends on convincing his right-wing coalition that budging on the Palestinian issue is necessary for the broader Iranian nuclear problem. And if he can’t, than he will have to form a new coalition, call new elections, or risk Israel’s isolation under his rule.
This explains why Netanyahu chose the merely rhetorical concession of conditionally accepting a Palestinian state. He offered media headlines, not a viable route for peace. But that gives him time. After all, the conditions he attached are simply non-starters, from demilitarization and Palestine’s sacrifice of anything close to sovereignty (no control over air space or foreign treaties), to the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, which rules out a return of the millions of refugees.
That is, Netanyahu’s was a tactical move. Expect more. But the US and Europe celebrated it, along with other global powers, not because it’s what they want, but because Obama broke Netanyahu’s back, even if so slightly. That is, the stalemate has been broken. Or as Obama put it: it shows “at least the possibility that we can restart serious talks.”
Just read between the lines: Jimmy Carter’s meeting with Hamas; Lieberman’s calculated response and his rapprochement to Russia; Arab cautious condemnation; Ahmadinejad’s silence, etc. The next move is still Netanyahu’s, who is trying to win some middle ground. Fat chance. If Obama budges, he loses everything he just won.
That means that if Netanyahu concedes, then consensus can be rebuilt around a roadmap to the creation of Palestine, isolating radicals in Israel and Iran, along with their proxy armies and military threats. If he doesn’t, than his days are numbered and the next player will still have to confront Obama’s challenge.
The game is on.
Andres Cala - Madrid-based freelance journalist and political scientist specialising in Middle Eastern and European policy, as well as global energy issues.
