Head in the sand?

Why does Benjamin Netanyahu think that everyone will believe him when he speaks from the two sides of his mouth, especially when he is talking about life-and-death issues like peace with the Arabs, particularly the Palestinians?

He undoubtedly does not know what is in store for him, even at home, where his bloated new government - 30 ministers and a half dozen deputy ministers - has just been introduced to the Knesset. This hodgepodge Cabinet of ultra-rightists and disingenuous leftists is bound to splinter once it faces its first serious test, be it dealing with the crippled Israeli economy or the so-called Mideast “peace process”.

Throughout the election campaign the hawkish Israeli leader adamantly refused to acknowledge that a final Palestinian-Israeli settlement would see the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, a point that is generally accepted worldwide, although there is nowadays a growing number of Palestinians, Israelis and others who prefer a one-state solution for the two peoples.

Netanyahu would only talk about an “economic plan” that supposedly would help the Palestinians who have endured a cruel Israeli occupation in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip since 1967. Even the Israeli pullout from the Gaza Strip in September 2005 failed to improve life in the crowded coastal region because of the Israeli blockade on land, sea and air.

However, in recent days, Netanyahu has seemingly changed his tune, vaguely promising “a viable peace with all of Israel’s Arab neighbours”.

Here, he chose, for example, not to acknowledge the “Arab Peace Initiative”, which has been offered seven years ago by all Arab governments and supported by many Muslim states elsewhere. (At the just-concluded Arab summit conference in Qatar, the Arab leaders have indicated that their initiative will not remain much longer on the table.)

Netanyahu may be up for a surprise when he comes to Washington in May to meet with President Barack Obama who has undoubtedly been aware of growing concerns within the European Union about the extremist views of the Israeli leader and several members of his government, especially Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who wants to administer an oath of loyalty to all citizens, particularly the Palestinian Arabs inside Israel.

A 17-page report prepared by a bipartisan group of prominent Americans who have dealt with the Middle East and recently submitted it to Obama has highlighted the seriousness of the situation in its eye-catching title: “A last Chance for a Two-State Israel-Palestine Agreement.”

A copy of the report, which has yet to be disseminated widely, has been delivered to Obama by one of the signatories, Paul Volcker, who has been recently named senior economic adviser to the president.

Among the other 10 signatories are former National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, former senator Chuck Hagel, former congressman Lee Hamilton, National Security Adviser Brent Scowcroft, and former World Bank president James D. Wolfensohn. All serve as senior advisors to the US/Middle East Project, whose president is Henry Siegman, the sponsor of the report.

They suggested that Obama needs “to flesh out the outlines of a fair, viable and sustainable agreement, based on principles that both Israel and the Palestinians have previously accepted” by endorsing UN resolutions 242 and 338, the Oslo Accords, the roadmap and the 2007 Annapolis understandings.

They noted that any “new US effort to reach an Israeli-Palestinian agreement may anger certain domestic constituencies”, an obvious reference to the Israeli lobby.

“We do not, however, believe it is beyond the capability of an American president to explain to the American people why this long-running dispute must at long last be ended and why it will take much diplomatic heavy lifting and public expenditure to make it work.”

Otherwise, it added, “in the end the stakes are too high to pursue a hands-off or arm’s-length approach”.

To maximise the prospects for success, the report suggested four steps: present a clear US vision to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which would include two states based on the June 4, 1967, borders “with minor, reciprocal, and agreed upon modifications”; a solution to the refugee problem that does not entail a general right of return but addresses “the Palestinian refugees’ sense of injustice and provides them with meaningful financial compensation as well as resettlement assistance”; Jerusalem as home to both capitals; and the need for “a more pragmatic approach towards Hamas and a Palestinian unity government”.

They conceded that “direct US engagement with Hamas may not now be practical, but shutting out the movement and isolating Gaza has only made it stronger and Fateh weaker”. Consequently, the US should “cease discouraging Palestinian national reconciliation and make clear that a (Palestinian) government ... that commits to abiding by the results of a national referendum on a future peace agreement would not be boycotted or sanctioned” - a position hat Hamas has long favoured.

Whether Obama will go along with these suggestions is too early to tell, but Netanyahu needs to realise quickly that he cannot bury his head in the sand for too long.