On the face of it, Obama is liberal, Netanyahu is conservative, and the explosion is only waiting to happen.
Variation: The European Union wants a Palestinian state, Netanyahu doesnt, and the explosion is already here.
Variation: The Palestinians have captured the PR high ground, claiming they want and deserve their own state; Netanyahu says no, and Israel loses out in public opinion.
Variation: Outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert worked hard to negotiate a Palestinian state, and won kudos among the Palestinian Authority. Netanyahu says nyet, and the Palestinians and Israel are once again on a collision course.
All this is on the face of it.
I dont believe any of it.
As in so much else, semantics play a seminal role. What is meant by a Palestinian state?
Guess what: What Netanyahu wants, and what Olmert wanted, are precisely the same. Its just that Netanyahu doesnt call it a state, and Olmert did.
I wont deny that symbolism plays a major role in diplomacy; that Olmerts symbolism elicited positive nods around the world, and that Netanyahus symbolism elicits the opposite.
But very quickly it will become clear to all parties Obama, the EU, the PA, not to mention Israel that nobody really wants a Palestinian state, not now, anyway.
Heres what Olmert said: Yes, the Palestinians must have their own state. There must be a two-state solution.
But if this were really true, then why isnt there a Palestinian state? Olmert had plenty of time to negotiate one. And he didnt. This is why:
He said that a Palestinian state must give the Palestinians control over their own destiny, except to the extent it it could destabilize or destroy Israel.
Therefore, Olmert said, a Palestinian state cannot control its own airspace, cannot have an army, cannot make a defense pact with another country, cannot make treaties and cannot take over Jerusalem.
Netanyahu says: Thats not a state.
The Palestinian negotiators say: Thats not a state we want.
Which is why Olmert never consummated negotiations over a Palestinian state.
The truth is, the Palestinians dont want a state, either, not one that promotes peace, anyway.
They say they want a full state, control over their own air space, the right to make defense pacts, etc. Translation: They want a state thats free to try to destroy Israel, free to continue terrorist attacks, free to deny the existence of Israel as a Jewish state.
Which means, they really dont want a two-state solution.
I wont deny that Olmert played the West for a fool with his faithful allegiance to the concept of a Palestinian state, defined as something unacceptable to Palestinian negotiators.
Olmert also defined a two-state solution as a shelf solution. That is, his goal was to get Israel and the Palestinian Authority to agree on what a Palestinian state would look like. It would be a picture on a shelf a state in theory.
Only as years passed would it be put into place, piece by piece.
A highly unrealistic scenario but one that kept the US and the EU happy.
I wont deny that Netanyahus approach lacks this PR appeal.
But Netanyahu tells it like it is, defines the real issues, and therefore has some chance of ultimate success.
Netanyahu is saying: Two states will not live side by side in peace when one of the states will not renounce terrorism and the Hamas charter.
Netanyahu is saying: Lets be grown ups. Are we in favor of real peace, or some fig leaf called a state that actually is a terrorist state?
Netanyahu is saying something else, too: The motive to get the Palestinians past their penchant for violence is economic development. Netanyahu took the Israeli economy out of the doldrums in the early 2000s. He believes he can do the same for the Palestinian economy.
Whether Netanyahu will succeed, I dont know. I do know that there is little difference between him, Olmert, Obama and the Palestinians on the issue of a Palestinian state, except semantics.
What Olmert called a state, Netanyahu doesnt, and the Palestinians agree. Translation: Netanyahu didnt backtrack. He spoke plainly.
