Israel Matzav

Heartbreak: Netanyahu to shift left in Sunday's speech?

Haaretz has been saying this all week, but when Haaretz says it you can dismiss it as wishful thinking. After all, Haaretz is Israel's Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily. But when JPost says it, that's a different story.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu does not believe that any of the parties in his coalition would leave at this stage if his diplomatic policies shifted leftward in Sunday's address at Bar-Ilan University's Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, sources close to Netanyahu said Thursday.

The sources said the Right learned lessons from toppling right-wing governments in the past, including Netanyahu's first administration, which led to left-wing governments that expedited diplomatic negotiations with the Palestinians and Syria.

They said that from his meetings with coalition partners, Netanyahu got the impression that they understood the pressure he was under from US President Barack Obama's administration and the need to maintain close ties with America ahead of key decisions that would have to be made regarding Iran.

Netanyahu will meet with on Friday with the three MKs of Habayit Hayehudi, who consider themselves the most right-wing faction in the coalition.

Regardless of what happens with the Right, Netanyahu is expected to publicly call for Kadima to join the coalition in the days after Sunday's speech.

Sources close to Netanyahu admitted that the prime minister did not believe that Kadima leader Tzipi Livni would be willing to bring her party into the coalition no matter what he would say in his speech.

Sadly, Netanyahu's calculus is likely correct. The only party that would outright quit the government over a call for a 'two-state solution' - National Union - isn't in the government. But a lot of people in the Likud are not going to be pleased.

A leftward shift would have the opposite affect inside Netanyahu's Likud faction, where 20 MKs have come out against a Palestinian state.

The only Likud MKs who would back him if he backed a Palestinian state are Dan Meridor, Michael Eitan, Silvan Shalom, Yossi Peled, Haim Katz and Carmel Shama.

Diaspora Affairs Minister Yuli Edelstein, who is one of the Likud's leading opponents of a Palestinian state, said he did not believe that Netanyahu would call for the formation of such a state at Bar-Ilan.

Edelstein said the current situation was different than what happened with former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, because leftist Likud MKs left to Kadima, Netanyahu's background was different than Sharon's and because of the bad experiences of the Gaza Strip withdrawal.

"He has to somehow find a formula that would keep the diplomatic process going without saying two-state solution," Edelstein said. "He's a bright man. Even with the pressure he is under, I doubt he would say something like that."

Read the whole thing.

The article has Labor MK's suggesting that Netanyahu might even accept Annapolis. That's wishful thinking on their part. Bibi's not that dumb. The government of Israel never approved Annapolis and Israel is not bound by it. But the government of Israel did approve the 'road map' subject to Ariel Sharon's fourteen reservations.

If I were Bibi, I would say that we accept the 'road map' subject to Sharon's reservations (the only way it was ever approved, and a way that all but guarantees it will never be implemented). The cabinet accepted it so he may not have much choice, although it might be cute to say that we accept it subject to the Obama administration accepting the Bush letter (if we have to fulfill our obligations undertaken by our previous governments, other countries should have to fulfill theirs).

I would not mention the words 'two-state solution'; the 'road map' implies a 'two-state solution' in the unlikely event that the 'Palestinians' ever carry out their obligations under it, so there's no need to say it. Whether the Obama administration would accept that formula is doubtful, but the Congress would certainly accept it. After the AIPAC convention, someone sent me an email to say that a senior Republican in the House (I know who but I'm not sure I'm allowed to say) said that Israel would have to play along and wait for the 'Palestinians' to blow it as usual. I think the Congress would see my formula as 'playing along.'

But Bibi's stubborness in the face of Obama's pressure has accomplished something. Friday's Haaretz runs an interesting op-ed from George Washington University professor Amitai Etzioni in which Etzioni argues that Bibi has succeeded in shifting the debate's terms.

Moreover, while several liberal Jewish members of Congress read the riot act to Netanyahu, including Carl Levin, Howard Berman and Henry Waxman, the Washington Post's official editorial called for finding a compromise between the Israeli and American positions - one that could hardly have been considered if Netanyahu had accepted a full freeze from the get-go.

The Post, hardly an Israeli cheerleader, stated in its June 7 editorial that "by insisting on [a total construction ban], the administration risks bogging itself down in a major dispute with its ally, while giving Arab governments and Palestinians a ready excuse not to make their own concessions." Moreover, it said, "the practical need for a total settlement freeze is debatable" and "a good compromise is achievable."

Arguably even more important if true give-and-take is to occur, Netanyahu succeeded overnight in taking back a very major concession that previous Israeli governments had made and turning it into a significant bargaining chip. For years - surely ever since Ehud Barak made his famous magnanimous peace offer - Israeli support for a two-state solution was more or less taken for granted. In a surprisingly short period, Netanyahu has put Israel into a position in which if it agrees to two states, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will be able to say that they and Obama have wrested a major concession from Israel's "right-wing government."

But by far the most important step Netanyahu took during his May visit received next to no attention. This may be because he made the point rather indirectly. Netanyahu stated, "I want to make it clear that we don't want to govern the Palestinians. We want to live in peace with them. We want them to govern themselves, absent a handful of powers that could endanger the state of Israel."

He did not say what these powers were or what dangers stem from calling "home rule" a "state"; he left these issues vague. But all those well-versed in the fine print of the envisioned two-state solution - though very few others - know that the Palestinian state is not expected to have the powers of a normal state. It will not be free to bring in all the arms and military units it desires, deny Israel the right to fly over its territory or exercise other powers that practically all sovereign states have.

Indeed. In fact, in Thursday's Haaretz, Ari Shavit called for substituting a seven-word formula for the three words 'two-state solution.' The seven word formula?

A demilitarized Palestine alongside a Jewish Israel.

Sounds like Andorra.

Yes, I hope to live blog on Sunday night, especially because this speech will likely be in Hebrew.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 6:52 AM