Did Netanyahu Bury the Two-State Solution?
Wednesday, October 01, 2014 | Ryan Jones ISRAEL TODAY
Some Israeli politicians see in Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stirring speech before the UN General Assembly the final nail in the coffin of the two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
In his speech, Netanyahu made clear that the current “template” for peace has failed, and that Israel is not prepared to repeat the mistakes of the Lebanon and Gaza withdrawals in Judea and Samaria (the so-called “West Bank”).
The Israeli leader strongly urged that Western peace brokers first facilitate stronger ties between the Jewish state and its more moderate Arab neighbors as a necessary first step toward eventual rapprochement with the Palestinians.
As far as Deputy Transportation Minister Tzipi Hotovely was concerned, Netanyahu had effectively stated there would never be a Palestinian state on Israel’s biblical heartland.
Netanyahu’s speech “informed the world that the two-state solution is dead,” Hotovely told Arutz Sheva Radio. “He spoke about the Middle East, about Cairo and Saudi Arabia and in essence hinted at other solutions rather than dividing the country. He alluded to the concepts of confederation.”
While Netanyahu did make reference to “territorial compromise,” he very conspicuously avoided the phrases “Palestinian state” or “two states for two peoples.”
In an interview with NPR, Israeli Justice Minister Tzipi Livni, who heads Israel’s peace negotiations and supports the two-state solution, suggested that Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’ intransigent speech days earlier had facilitated Netanyahu’s new position and all but killed the peace process.
Last Friday when he mounted the same podium at the UN General Assembly, Abbas essentially labeled Israel as his enemy and gave virtually no hope that peace talks based on mutual goodwill would restart any time soon.
“Instead of following the path of negotiations which would have enabled the creation of a Palestinian state, Abbas is now going to spend years on his [unilateral] demand for the UN to set a date for statehood,” said Livni. “Abbas should have opted for the American framework document which would have led him to a Palestinian state.”
Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz said he was unsurprised by Abbas’ belligerence, insisting that the current Palestinian leader had transformed into “a more serious enemy” than his predecessor, Yasser Arafat.
“[Abbas’] ideology is stronger and [he] negates the existence of a Jewish state and the right of the Jewish people to have a state of their own,” Steinitz told a conference at Bar-Ilan University. “For [Abbas], there is no Jewish people. He is only willing to recognize the Jewish religion.”
Still, there were some holdouts for “land-for-peace,” even if it meant Israel tread that path alone.
During a panel discussion on Channel 2 News, Opposition and Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog was asked to explain exactly what he expects of Netanyahu in his (Herzog’s) repeated demands that the prime minister continue to advance the peace process.
Herzog acknowledged that all previous surrender of land had only resulted in more terrorism, but nevertheless insisted that Netanyahu announce additional withdrawals backed by “iron clad guarantees.”
He failed to elaborate, or to address the fact that the 2005 Gaza pullout was supposedly backed by “iron clad guarantees” that failed to prevent Hamas’ violent takeover or subsequent assaults on southern Israel.
Want more news from Israel?
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates from ISRAEL TODAY.
Click Here to sign up for our FREE daily email updates from ISRAEL TODAY.
