Netanyahu’s Gambit

The syndrome is clear: since 1992 every Israeli hawk, once elected prime minister, turns into a dove. Yitzhak Rabin, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert all shifted radically to the left after taking office. What you see from here is not what you see from there, said one of them.

And what any reasonable person sees after he enters the PM’s claustrophobic chamber in Jerusalem is that occupation is futile. That is why Rabin went to Oslo (1993) and Barak went to Camp David (2000). That is why Sharon pulled out of Gaza (2005) and Olmert offered a withdrawal from the West Bank (2008).

Is it Netanyahu’s turn now? Will the defiant leader of the Israeli right surprise the world with peace?

During his previous tenure, Benjamin Netanyahu failed to deliver. Like the other four prime ministers, he made some painful concessions, but never achieved peace. That is why the American administration and the Israeli left greeted his comeback with apprehension and suspicion.

Hence, the prime minister had to make a move. In a formative speech which he gave at Bar-Ilan University last week, Netanyahu tried to redefine himself. For the first time in his life he uttered the forbidden words: Palestinian state. At long last Netanyahu has accepted the idea of a two-state solution.

But even the new Netanyahu did not accept the idea as is. The cornerstone of his speech was a new, somewhat revolutionary formula for the envisioned peace: a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside the Jewish state.

Many failed to see what was new in Netanyahu’s vision. For decades, peace professionals and activists believed that when peace comes, Palestine will be demilitarized and Israel will be Jewish. Americans, Europeans and Israelis involved in the peace process took this premise to be self-evident.

But the Palestinians never accepted this premise. They did not agree to limit the sovereignty of their future state so that Israel’s security would be guaranteed. They did not recognize the existence of a Jewish people which expresses its right of self-determination in the Jewish nation-state. They did not go through the profound ideological conversion required so that a real two-state peace could be achieved and sustained.

That is why Netanyahu’s new interpretation of the two-state solution is of historical importance.

Its significance is two-fold. On the one hand it seals Israel’s psychological and ideological conversion regarding the Palestinians; on the other hand it calls for a similar Palestinian conversion. It commits even the Israeli right to the need to establish a Palestinian state, but it demands an unequivocal Palestinian recognition of the Jewish state.

Peace is a two-way street, says Netanyahu. It is a joint-venture. Israel contributes its share by recognizing the Other, but the Other must also recognize Israel’s national identity and legitimacy.

Thirty years ago the leader of the Labor party, Golda Meir, said there is no Palestinian people. Fifteen years ago Israel’s peace leader, Yitzhak Rabin, was not willing to grant the Palestinian people a state.

Now comes the leader of Israel’s right who says what neither Meir nor Rabin would say. This is a poignant moment: Netanyahu’s statement unifies Israel around the idea of a two-nation-state solution.

But while taking a step forward and making a dramatic concession, Netanyahu challenges not only Palestinians but also the Americans and Europeans. He demands that the international community issue a solid guarantee assuring that the future Palestine will indeed be demilitarized. Netanyahu’s peace is has three components: Israel accepts a Palestinian state; Palestinians recognize a Jewish state; the international community guarantees that the Palestinian state will not jeopardize the existence of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu has crossed his Rubicon. He has abandoned his old ideological home. No, his new persuasion is not that of Jimmy Carter. He still believes the Middle East is a rough neighborhood. He still believes the cause of the conflict is not occupation but the failure of most Arabs to recognize Jewish history and Jewish sovereignty.

But this harsh worldview no longer leads to an obsession with occupied territories and illegal settlements. It leads to the two core principles which are both realistic and moral: recognition of the Jewish state and demilitarization of the Palestinian state.

The two new Netanyahu principles unite the vast majority of Israelis. If the international community rejects them, it will encounter a rigid Netanyahu and a stubborn Israel. But if President Obama endorses the self-evident principles, he will see change. If Israel gets an international peace guarantee, peace will happen. In his own way, Netanyahu has met his moment of truth. Now Obama must.