The idea that “direct, bilateral negotiations are the only viable path to achieve an enduring peace,” is repeated often in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The truth of it is obvious; any lasting agreement will require the full buy-in from both Israelis and Palestinians, and it is unlikely that an imposed settlement of the conflict would hold. The frequency with which this axiom is repeated suggests that an imposition of an agreement by outside actors such as the United Nations, the European Union or even the United States is a real possibility. In fact, virtually no one

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

seriously suggests that an agreement simply be imposed on Israelis and Palestinians.

The real issue is how the statement is defined. In general terms, supporters of Israeli policies take this rule to mean that no pressure should be brought upon Israel, as any such pressure is seen as undermining bilateral negotiations. Opponents of Israel’s occupation, on the other hand, tend to see outside pressure, in the form of international diplomacy or economic pressure, as crucial to incentivizing both sides into serious negotiations and toward making the difficult compromises necessary to achieve a final agreement.

As the administration of President Barack Obama enters its final months, there has been a good deal of speculation about what, if anything, the outgoing president will do about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Relatively free of political pressure, it seems to make sense that Obama would not want to leave this conflict as it stands, with a peace process in shambles, an increasingly isolated but aggressive Israel and a Palestinian population in deep despair and seeing violence as the only available, albeit futile, route open to them.

According to reports, the administration is considering several options: a United Nations Security Council resolution on the two-state solution, a resolution on the settlements or some combination of the two, either at the UN or in a statement of final status parameters by Obama. Any of these alternatives are staunchly opposed by Prime Minister Netanyahu and his supporters in the United States.

In order to counter such measures, the argument being made is that only bi-lateral talks can resolve the conflict, and therefore no outside pressures can be brought, in accordance with the Netanyahu government’s view that outside pressure is incompatible with direct negotiations.

In fact, outside pressure does not interfere with bilateral talks, it facilitates them. One example would be last year’s completion of the agreement to halt potential military aspects of Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of sanctions. The United States and Iran were the key players, but the involvement of the United Kingdom, France, Russia, China, and Germany – countries that had a variety of views of and interests in the agreement – clearly helped keep negotiations on track and helped both sides to make difficult compromises.

When dealing with a conflict between two peoples that are equally passionate about their nationalism, rights, fears and historical claims, but far from equal in terms of negotiating strength, outside influence is indispensable. The compromises both Israel and the Palestinians would need to make to come to a final agreement will be difficult and will face strong domestic opposition. As with Iran, international advocacy for compromise will be indispensable for embattled leaders in both sides.

But external pressure would serve a more direct purpose in the case of Israelis and Palestinians. Israel currently has a government that, despite its Prime Minister giving lip service to a two-state solution, has worked hard to prevent one from ever coming about. Israelis who voted for Likud, the Jewish Home and other right wing parties, by and large, oppose the creation of a Palestinian state. Most Israelis see a Palestinian state as a huge risk, even if they support the creation of one. Meanwhile, Israel is an economic and political oasis in an unstable region, with the majority of its citizens enjoying a standard of living comparable to most Western countries. Without outside pressure, any Israeli leader, much less a right wing one, has no reason to take the tough, politically risky decisions that ending the occupation would entail.

On the Palestinian side, a fractured and divided leadership makes any political progress difficult. This is compounded by the loss of confidence among the Palestinian populace in both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, and the failure of two decades of negotiations to free Palestinians from the occupation. The reality that any agreement will require compromise on both sides is complicated for Palestinians by their view that they have already sacrificed 78% of their homeland for the possibility of a sovereign homeland on the remaining 22%.

The political will required for an agreement with Israel is unlikely to be forthcoming from a Palestinian leadership that is perceived as corrupt and comfortable in positions of relative wealth and power in Ramallah. Only external pressure can push that leadership to make these decisions. The alternative is political chaos and an unknown future leadership that will almost certainly have to show more steadfastness than willingness to compromise, at least in the short run.

It is, of course, conceivable that the two sides might eventually talk again even without any outside pressure. But, as has been the case for over twenty years, talking does not lead to results by itself. The international community, especially the United States, is not merely justified in putting expectations on both sides and creating consequences for failing to meet those expectations; doing so is a requirement if there is ever to be a diplomatic resolution to this conflict.

The claim that outside pressure is the same as dictating a solution is simply false. Those making such a claim must be asked why. Opposing outside influence on both Israel and the Palestinians, and claiming that any pressure is the same as imposing a solution, is a sure way to block peace, to keep Israel and the Palestinians locked in conflict, and to prevent the realization of a two-state solution.

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has an op-ed in today’s New York Times expanding upon remarks he made last week regarding the upsurge in violence in Israel-Palestine. It’s worth taking a moment to consider why this op-ed was necessary. In last week’s remarks, Ban unequivocally condemned terrorism, just as he did in today’s op-ed, while also noting, “security measures alone will not stop the violence.  They cannot address the profound sense of alienation and despair driving some Palestinians – especially young people… As oppressed peoples have demonstrated throughout the ages, it is human nature to react to occupation, which often serves as a potent incubator of hate and extremism.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded to this as he always does – ignoring the condemnation of terrorism, acting as if all the blame had been laid upon Israel, and rejecting the notion that the Israeli occupation might have something, anything, to do with Palestinian violence. He even went as far as to accuse Ban of encouraging terrorism with his remarks (Yes, it is odd to suggest that a statement from the UN Secretary General would incite violence while also rejecting as outrageous the notion that a half-century of military occupation might do so, but let’s leave that aside for now).

Israel’s own security chiefs have said the same thing – that Palestinian despair at the occupation ever ending is a major driver of violence, and that genuine steps to ameliorate that situation, rather than simply cracking down harder, must be taken.

Netanyahu’s government has made an unfortunate habit of treating every criticism, no matter how carefully or constructively worded, as an attack on Israel’s legitimacy. While we might have expected this from the Israeli right wing, it was really disappointing to see an anti-hate group like the Anti-Defamation League hastily echoing it, in a press release calling Ban’s words an “apparent justification of Palestinian terrorism.”

Ban’s analysis shouldn’t be at all controversial. Indeed, Israel’s own security chiefs have said the same thing – that Palestinian despair at the occupation ever ending is a major driver of violence, and that genuine steps to ameliorate that situation, rather than simply cracking down harder, must be taken.

In a recent report, Israel’s Shin Bet internal security service concluded that young Palestinians were motivated to act, in part, “based on feelings of national, economic and personal deprivation.” The head of Israel Defense Forces Military Intelligence, Maj. General Herzl Halevi, told a meeting of Israel’s cabinet that “feelings of rage and frustration” were major factors driving young Palestinians to these acts and that they “felt they had nothing to lose.” U.S. Ambassador to Israel Dan Shapiro laid out a similar critique in a recent speech to an Israeli security conference – receiving a similarly over-the-top Israeli government response.

No one seriously would argue that the Shin Bet and the IDF are trying to justify Palestinian terrorism. Neither was Ambassador Shapiro. And neither is the UN Secretary-General, as he made clear in his initial remarks, and again in today’s op-ed.  Understanding the factors that contribute to violence is not remotely the same as “justifying” that violence. On the contrary, it’s necessary in order to develop an effective policy response. It really shouldn’t be hard to understand that the daily abuse, humiliation and dispossession that Palestinians experience under Israeli occupation is a major contributing factor in the decision of some Palestinians to resort to terrorist violence. Acknowledging this does not make terrorist violence any less reprehensible. And avoiding these facts, or suppressing discussion of them, will only result in more of that violence, not less.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly today, one day after a speech by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Nothing of substance is going to change as a result of these speeches. But Netanyahu’s in particular offered a good picture of the current state of affairs and why they are what they are.

Netanyahu’s speech was clearly aimed not at the international audience he was addressing, but at constituent
audiences in Israel and the United States. Indeed, his very cadence was rehearsed to allow for bursts of applause of the kind he’s grown accustomed to in Congress. After a few of those silent pauses, a small portion of the audience recognized the need to fill them with polite applause, but for the most part, Netanyahu’s speech was received with stony silence.

If there was anything remarkable about the speech, it was Netanyahu’s hostile, condescending tone. Already, his “44-second pause” has become infamous. This pause, after Netanyahu accused the United Nations of tolerating genocidal threats from Iran, was accompanied by Netanyahu’s scowl at the entire assembly.

The moment was emblematic of Netanyahu’s scolding approach. The message he intended to convey to those gathered in the room and watching was highlighted when he discussed the “unshakeable” bond between Israel and the United States. Netanyahu was telling the world that as long as he has America, he really doesn’t care what the rest of the world thinks.

In the wake of the very public arguments between the Netanyahu government and the Obama Administration over the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, many observers have been speculating about the future of the US-Israel relationship and if it is as “unshakeable” as Netanyahu contends it is. The contours of where that relationship might go from here were also apparent in another piece of Netanyahu’s UN Speech.

“President Obama and I have both said that our differences over the nuclear deal are a disagreement within the family,” Netanyahu declared. “But we have no disagreement about the need to work together to secure our common future.”

There should be no doubt among anyone trying to promote an end to the Israel-Palestine conflict that the experience of the Obama Administration proves that, however rocky the politics may be, the United States will not falter in ensuring that Israel remains the dominant military power in the region. Despite repeated episodes of friction and tension between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, American largesse in military support of Israel has only increased.

But even if we adopt Netanyahu’s family analogy, it’s worth keeping in mind that, while family members will generally keep each other safe, they don’t necessarily always support every endeavor of the other family members.

That notion was highlighted by a revelation in Politico the very morning of Bibi’s speech at the UN. The report says that Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has twice requested that the President publicly state that the United States would veto any UN Security Council Resolution calling for a Palestinian state and that both times, the President has declined to agree to such an action.

The possibility of such a UN resolution is real, and if the Obama Administration is open to allowing is to pass, that would mark a significant shift in U.S. posture at the UN. Most pointedly, it brings to mind the 2011 incident where the United States vetoed a resolution on settlements that was virtually identical to America’s stated policy.

Some might see this as an effect of the mutual dislike between Obama and Netanyahu, but in reality it is more than that. No doubt, when Obama’s term in office ends, his successor is likely to be at least somewhat more to Israel’s liking. But there are real differences in policy in play here, and those differences are not limited to Iran.

In explaining why Obama was not more responsive to Reid’s requests, National Security Council spokesperson, Ned Price reminded us that the United States supports a two-state solution. He pointed out that Palestinian efforts in the international arena were not welcomed by the administration, but the implication was clear: the Obama Administration was not going to promise to veto a resolution that might serve to save the dimming possibility of a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

That is a policy that could well continue into the next administration, and it puts political daylight between the US and Israel.

That daylight might matter in the near future. Netanyahu repeated his stock line about being willing to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas “with no precondition,” the day after Abbas made his empty statement about the Palestinians no longer abiding by “previous signed agreements.” While Abbas did not actually annul a single agreement with Israel, Netanyahu will certainly want to use this as yet another obstacle in the way of any action toward ending Israel’s occupation. Obama seems intent, however, on preserving some hope for a two-state solution.

Netanyahu’s belligerence to everyone but America in his speech was palpable. He made no effort to hide his disdain. While there will be some humor to be gleaned from his glaring 44-second pause and his trumpeting of cherry tomatoes as an Israeli accomplishment, the speech will only increase Israel’s isolation on the world stage. It will also make it even more embarrassing for the United States to continue to shield Israel from the consequences not only of its policies but also of Netanyahu’s hubris.

Thumbing his nose at the entire international community will play well in Israel and among Israel’s more militant supported in the United States. But it will sharpen the divide between those who want to secure Israel by utterly defeating the Palestinians and those who want to see Israel’s occupation end with peace and security for all.

The latter group includes the Obama Administration and most American Jews. Netanyahu has made it clear that he is an ideological opponent of that group. It’s time to accept him at his word on that and stop pretending he can be won over.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appointed the Likud Party’s Danny Danon, currently the Minister of Science, to the position of United Nations envoy. Danon, a man who Netanyahu fired only last year because of his “loose cannon” actions, seems an odd choice for a diplomatic position of any kind.

Danon seems particularly ill suited for the role of UN Envoy due to his outspoken and uncompromising opposition to a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict, something virtually the entire world supports. Danon is not afraid to make this clear either. Here are his own words in recent years. Read them and judge for yourself what message Netanyahu is sending by appointing Danon to this post.

“There is place only for one state on the land of Israel…. I do not believe in a two-state solution.” – Al Jazeera

“I will use my strength and influence to convince as many people as I can within the party and outside the party that a Palestinian state is bad news for Israel.” – The Forward

“Even if there will be a vote [at the UN on a Palestinian state], it will be a Facebook state. They will have a lot of likes in the Facebook, but it will not change the lives of the Israelis, the Jewish pioneers, who live in the hills of Judea and Samaria.” – The New Republic

“An independent Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would pose a grave threat to Israel.” – Fox News

“There was never a government discussion, resolution or vote about the two-state solution…if you bring it to a vote, you will see the majority of Likud ministers, along with the Jewish Home [party], will be against it.” – Times of Israel

“Enough with the two-state-solution. Land-for-peace is over. We don’t want a Palestinian State. We need to apply Israeli sovereignty over all Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. It’s been about 20 years since the Oslo Accords. That’s finished and now we’re ready for new ideas…We are a nationalist government and not a government that will establish a Palestinian government on 1967 lines.” – Arutz 7

“If you go to the Arab-populated cities in Judea and Samaria, you will hear them speaking like they do in Jordan. It’s the same with the Arabs of Gaza and their connection to Egypt.” – Arutz 7

“Our goal should be to annex the maximum land with the minimum Arab population,” he said of the West Bank. “We should speak about our rights and not apologize for it. We have biblical rights, historical rights, rights according to international law. We also have common-sense rights: We won the war.” – JTA

On building in E Jerusalem: “The international community can say whatever they want, and we can do whatever we want.” –Times of Israel

On December 31, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas closed out a year of stinging defeats by signing on to 18

international accords. Included among these was the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the International Criminal Court (ICC). The reaction in Jerusalem and Washington was apoplectic.

The United States rebuked Abbas, and Israel immediately vowed harsh reprisals. Shortly thereafter, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that although Israel would not increase settlement growth—a routine method of punishing the Palestinians—it would withhold the tax and tariff revenues it collects for the Palestinians. The Obama administration also announced that it was reviewing the annual U.S. aid package to the Palestinian Authority. Read the rest of this article at LobeLog.