- Home
- About
- General Issues
- Maps
-
Position Statements
- 2011 >
-
2012
>
- Time to Negotiate the Northern and Southern Sectors of the Israeli-West Bank Border
- President Peres and Dr. Ashrawi: Thank You for Staying on Track
- Playing the Victim Card Will Not Bring Peace
- Negotiations By the Parties
- The World Should Help the Palestinian Hunger Striker
- ...and only afterwards move to discuss the topic of Jerusalem
- A Question of Accountability
- Israel Twisting in the Wind
- Netanyahu: Too Big for His Britches
- Netanyahu's "Israeli Comfort"
- How Shaul Mofaz Can Jump-Start the Peace Process
- Netanyahu on the Brink
- Time for Taking Stock
- Israel in Wonderland
- Whatever Happened to the Quartet?
- The Palestinians Want to Negotiate
- A Time for Hope and a Call for Restraint
- Israel Can Win in Gaza, But Not Now
- Congratulations to the New State of Palestine!
- Security and Borders: Both Required for Peace
-
2013
>
- It Is Up to Israel to Restart Peace Negotiations
- Israel and Palestine: Changing the Terms of Agreement
- The Knesset Bill to Increase the Number of Women that Elect the Chief Rabbis Is Important for Jewish Women
- Proposal on Governance of the Holy Basin
- Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle
- Tzipi Livni's Challenge
- Women Should Be Free to Pray at the Wailing Wall
- Proposed Highway through the Jordan Valley Will Backfire on Israel
- 2014 >
-
2015
>
- We Should Applaud Herzog and Livni for Reclaiming Zionism
- The Next Israeli Government
- West Bank Citizenry and Receipt of Individuals of Palestinian Origin
- What Next for Israel?
- Palestinian statehood
- Mischief in the Trade Legislation would Hinder Progress
- What Next for America?
- Could American Firms Choose to Gradually Disinvest from Israel?
- Boycotting Israel is not anti-Semitism
- 2016 >
- 2017 >
- 2019 >
- 2020 >
- 2023 >
- 2024
- Resources
- About the Authors
Time for Netanyahu to Reach Across the Aisle
June 25, 2013
These days Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a man caught in the middle. He seems to have come around to the understanding that peace with the Palestinians is a necessity to preserve Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. Yet he is beholden to the members of his own Likud party, which includes rightists like Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon. Danon recently stated on Israeli TV that there would never be a Palestinian state and that the Palestinians would be governed by Jordan. Since it is apparent Netanyahu cannot find enough support for peace negotiations from his own base, if he truly wishes for peace, he may have no choice but to reach across the aisle.
Netanyahu governs in a coalition with centrists like Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, an advocate of negotiations, and Finance Minister Yair Lapid, whose sudden surge in the polls came at Likud’s expense. Lapid sees peace with the Palestinians as a desideratum for Israel’s economic future. Yet his coalition also includes Economics Minister Naftali Bennett, whose settler movement seeks permanent Israeli sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank. Earlier this week he told a settlers group that the idea of a Palestinian state had reached a “dead end.” And then there is the feisty right wing of Likud led by Danon. At a nominating convention in May 2012 he organized a group of pro-settler Likud stalwarts to challenge Netanyahu and nearly deprived him of leadership of his own party. Netanyahu was forced to scramble back, and this led to his short-lived alliance with Kadima Party leader Shaul Mofaz. Now, a year later, Netanyahu has to govern with this fragile coalition, which makes domestic politics an ever-present problem. It goes a long way to explaining his recalcitrance, despite US Secretary of State John Kerry’s frequent visits to the region to try and get peace talks started.
In Netanyahu’s public statements, such as the June 20 interview in the Washington Post, he puts the onus on the Palestinians: “The real reason is the persistent refusal to recognize a sovereign Jewish state in any boundary.” How much of this is a fig leaf for public consumption? Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed on numerous occasions that the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and the Arab Peace Plan put forward by that side declares the same. Two years ago Netanyahu put forth an affirmation of Israel’s Jewish identity as a precondition for talks, which gave the Palestinians pause, since it would have meant surrendering in advance of negotiations their “right of return” to their ancestral homes in Israel. Now he has backed off from demanding it as a precondition and simply made it a matter to be hammered out in negotiations. That is as it should be, for when the Palestinians concede, as they will, that they will not have a right of return, they will expect to get something in exchange. In short, their “persistent refusal” was merely part of the struggle over preconditions and marking out a reasonably level playing field for negotiations. The same can be said about Netanyahu’s fears that Palestine would become an outpost of Iran; negotiations can establish the parameters of a demilitarized Palestine.
Netanyahu conveniently ignores the main stumbling-block for the other side when he says, “The problem isn’t the settlements.” Clearly, for the Palestinians, it is the settlements. Netanyahu knows it, but he also knows the political cost in facing down the members of his own party if he were to offer a settlement freeze.
Netanyahu’s predicament bears striking similarity to the situation of US House Speaker John Boehner. Shortly he will have to deal with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform when the bill passed by the Senate arrives on his desk. He understands that if the Republican Party is to have any chance of winning the presidency in 2016, it must regain Hispanic voters, and this requires the passage of an immigration bill that addresses their concerns.
Yet Boehner is dogged by Tea Party Republicans who adamantly oppose any sort of pathway to citizenship for over 11 million Hispanics who languish as illegal aliens. As the 2012 election showed, their plight is something Hispanic voters care deeply about. So now Boehner is faced with a choice: honor the “Hastert Rule” and only bring to the floor legislation that has the support of the majority in his own party, in which case there will be no immigration bill, or reach across the aisle and work with Democrats and a minority of Republicans to get a bill passed. If he reaches across the aisle he may save his party, yet the reaction from his fellow Republicans could be so fierce that he could lose his job as Speaker.
Netanyahu may have an equally tenuous hold on power as he is faced with his choice. If he opens peace talks with the Palestinians, he will likely face a rebellion from within his own party that could bring down his government. Yet if he refuses to work with Kerry, and Israel is then seen as the recalcitrant party, there will be all manner of international repercussions that could harm Israel. Even the senior leaders of American Jewry, notably Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, have taken the unprecedented step of warning Netanyahu against coddling the likes of Bennett and Danon even as they expressed confidence that Netanyahu would work for a two-state solution for the sake of Israel’s Jewish future.
Some doubt Netanyahu’s sincerity, whether he actually wants a two-state solution. Indeed, the man holds his cards close to his vest. Yet in the end Netanyahu is committed above all to preserving Israel as a Jewish state. Like Ariel Sharon before him, he understands the impossible demographic conundrum facing Israel if it tries incorporate millions of Palestinians into its democracy, as it must if it holds on to the West Bank and Gaza, and still retain its Jewish character. The bottom line is that without a Palestinian state, Israel’s future as a Jewish state will be in jeopardy.
Netanyahu needs to reach across the aisle, and the politician with the greatest resources is Shelly Yacimovich, leader of the Labor Party which won 15 seats in the election last February. She is a strong advocate of peace talks, and only last week met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and told him it is necessary to start peace talks immediately. Back in March she refused to join Netanyahu’s coalition, believing, as she said, that he would only “put on a show” of negotiations with the Palestinians. Now, however, if Yacimovich can be convinced of Netanyahu’s sincerity for peace, she should graciously accept the opportunity to cooperate for this historic purpose. The sight of Netanyahu bucking his own party in order to work with her should be reason enough to bury the hatchet.
Yacimovich has other choices too. She could hold out and hope that Netanyahu falls victim to the disunity in his ranks. But without a reliable partner, Netanyahu might just move to the safety of his right-wing base and leave Kerry’s efforts to restart negotiations in the dust. Then she would bear some of the responsibility for the failure to bring peace. Furthermore, although Yacimovich has ambitions to lead the government and may dream of becoming Israel’s great peacemaker, the reality is that Netanyahu, with his solid right-wing credentials, is better situated to lead all sectors of Israeli society to accept a peace agreement that will undoubtedly require painful concessions.
Secretary of State Kerry is due to visit Israel late next week; his fifth visit since February. He has stated that without a breakthrough in the month of June leading to the resumption of talks, he can find better things to do with his time. Netanyahu will have to decide whether finally he will make the sincere effort to show the Palestinians that he is ready to negotiate a peace agreement that offers them a state. For Boehner too, the moment of truth on the immigration bill is fast approaching. These two leaders have the opportunity to rise to the occasion and do the right thing, but to do so they will have to reach across the aisle.
These days Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a man caught in the middle. He seems to have come around to the understanding that peace with the Palestinians is a necessity to preserve Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state. Yet he is beholden to the members of his own Likud party, which includes rightists like Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon. Danon recently stated on Israeli TV that there would never be a Palestinian state and that the Palestinians would be governed by Jordan. Since it is apparent Netanyahu cannot find enough support for peace negotiations from his own base, if he truly wishes for peace, he may have no choice but to reach across the aisle.
Netanyahu governs in a coalition with centrists like Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, an advocate of negotiations, and Finance Minister Yair Lapid, whose sudden surge in the polls came at Likud’s expense. Lapid sees peace with the Palestinians as a desideratum for Israel’s economic future. Yet his coalition also includes Economics Minister Naftali Bennett, whose settler movement seeks permanent Israeli sovereignty over the whole of the West Bank. Earlier this week he told a settlers group that the idea of a Palestinian state had reached a “dead end.” And then there is the feisty right wing of Likud led by Danon. At a nominating convention in May 2012 he organized a group of pro-settler Likud stalwarts to challenge Netanyahu and nearly deprived him of leadership of his own party. Netanyahu was forced to scramble back, and this led to his short-lived alliance with Kadima Party leader Shaul Mofaz. Now, a year later, Netanyahu has to govern with this fragile coalition, which makes domestic politics an ever-present problem. It goes a long way to explaining his recalcitrance, despite US Secretary of State John Kerry’s frequent visits to the region to try and get peace talks started.
In Netanyahu’s public statements, such as the June 20 interview in the Washington Post, he puts the onus on the Palestinians: “The real reason is the persistent refusal to recognize a sovereign Jewish state in any boundary.” How much of this is a fig leaf for public consumption? Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has affirmed on numerous occasions that the Palestinian Authority recognizes Israel’s right to exist, and the Arab Peace Plan put forward by that side declares the same. Two years ago Netanyahu put forth an affirmation of Israel’s Jewish identity as a precondition for talks, which gave the Palestinians pause, since it would have meant surrendering in advance of negotiations their “right of return” to their ancestral homes in Israel. Now he has backed off from demanding it as a precondition and simply made it a matter to be hammered out in negotiations. That is as it should be, for when the Palestinians concede, as they will, that they will not have a right of return, they will expect to get something in exchange. In short, their “persistent refusal” was merely part of the struggle over preconditions and marking out a reasonably level playing field for negotiations. The same can be said about Netanyahu’s fears that Palestine would become an outpost of Iran; negotiations can establish the parameters of a demilitarized Palestine.
Netanyahu conveniently ignores the main stumbling-block for the other side when he says, “The problem isn’t the settlements.” Clearly, for the Palestinians, it is the settlements. Netanyahu knows it, but he also knows the political cost in facing down the members of his own party if he were to offer a settlement freeze.
Netanyahu’s predicament bears striking similarity to the situation of US House Speaker John Boehner. Shortly he will have to deal with the issue of comprehensive immigration reform when the bill passed by the Senate arrives on his desk. He understands that if the Republican Party is to have any chance of winning the presidency in 2016, it must regain Hispanic voters, and this requires the passage of an immigration bill that addresses their concerns.
Yet Boehner is dogged by Tea Party Republicans who adamantly oppose any sort of pathway to citizenship for over 11 million Hispanics who languish as illegal aliens. As the 2012 election showed, their plight is something Hispanic voters care deeply about. So now Boehner is faced with a choice: honor the “Hastert Rule” and only bring to the floor legislation that has the support of the majority in his own party, in which case there will be no immigration bill, or reach across the aisle and work with Democrats and a minority of Republicans to get a bill passed. If he reaches across the aisle he may save his party, yet the reaction from his fellow Republicans could be so fierce that he could lose his job as Speaker.
Netanyahu may have an equally tenuous hold on power as he is faced with his choice. If he opens peace talks with the Palestinians, he will likely face a rebellion from within his own party that could bring down his government. Yet if he refuses to work with Kerry, and Israel is then seen as the recalcitrant party, there will be all manner of international repercussions that could harm Israel. Even the senior leaders of American Jewry, notably Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, have taken the unprecedented step of warning Netanyahu against coddling the likes of Bennett and Danon even as they expressed confidence that Netanyahu would work for a two-state solution for the sake of Israel’s Jewish future.
Some doubt Netanyahu’s sincerity, whether he actually wants a two-state solution. Indeed, the man holds his cards close to his vest. Yet in the end Netanyahu is committed above all to preserving Israel as a Jewish state. Like Ariel Sharon before him, he understands the impossible demographic conundrum facing Israel if it tries incorporate millions of Palestinians into its democracy, as it must if it holds on to the West Bank and Gaza, and still retain its Jewish character. The bottom line is that without a Palestinian state, Israel’s future as a Jewish state will be in jeopardy.
Netanyahu needs to reach across the aisle, and the politician with the greatest resources is Shelly Yacimovich, leader of the Labor Party which won 15 seats in the election last February. She is a strong advocate of peace talks, and only last week met Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in Ramallah and told him it is necessary to start peace talks immediately. Back in March she refused to join Netanyahu’s coalition, believing, as she said, that he would only “put on a show” of negotiations with the Palestinians. Now, however, if Yacimovich can be convinced of Netanyahu’s sincerity for peace, she should graciously accept the opportunity to cooperate for this historic purpose. The sight of Netanyahu bucking his own party in order to work with her should be reason enough to bury the hatchet.
Yacimovich has other choices too. She could hold out and hope that Netanyahu falls victim to the disunity in his ranks. But without a reliable partner, Netanyahu might just move to the safety of his right-wing base and leave Kerry’s efforts to restart negotiations in the dust. Then she would bear some of the responsibility for the failure to bring peace. Furthermore, although Yacimovich has ambitions to lead the government and may dream of becoming Israel’s great peacemaker, the reality is that Netanyahu, with his solid right-wing credentials, is better situated to lead all sectors of Israeli society to accept a peace agreement that will undoubtedly require painful concessions.
Secretary of State Kerry is due to visit Israel late next week; his fifth visit since February. He has stated that without a breakthrough in the month of June leading to the resumption of talks, he can find better things to do with his time. Netanyahu will have to decide whether finally he will make the sincere effort to show the Palestinians that he is ready to negotiate a peace agreement that offers them a state. For Boehner too, the moment of truth on the immigration bill is fast approaching. These two leaders have the opportunity to rise to the occasion and do the right thing, but to do so they will have to reach across the aisle.
