Netanyahu's reception in Washington suggests to Emad Gad that a Palestinian state could be closer than most people think It used to be that the first visit by a new Israeli prime minister to Washington was a walkover. The Americans would swear their support and tell those concerned in the region that Israel would always be top dog. The message was clear: anyone wanting to stay on Washington's good side must be nice to Israel too. It used to be that the prime minister would take a massive coterie to America, ministers and advisers, aides and family members, all ready to charm and impress their way from Washington to New York and back. This is what Binyamin Netanyahu did during his first visit to Washington as prime minister in 1996. It is not what is happening this time Netanyahu took his wife along but left his children home. His delegation was trimmed down to a minimum, and New York was left out of the visit. Before he left Israeli commentators warned him not to rub Obama the wrong way. Some even advised that he should talk no more than one third of the time he spends with Obama, ie 20 minutes out of their scheduled one-hour one-on-one. For the first time a new prime minister's visit to the US doesn't look like fun. Back in Israel everyone is worried. The new US president is different from his predecessors. Obama believes that the image of the US has been greatly harmed by the pro- Israel bias of US foreign policy. Obama's views are close to those Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer voiced two years ago. In The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy the two argued that Washington's main problem in the Middle East is that it was implementing an Israeli, not an American, agenda. The invasion of Iraq was, they believed, mainly an Israeli agenda. And Washington remained capable of sorting out its differences with Tehran through talks. The two experts went as far as saying that a nuclear Iran is Israel's problem, not America's. In other words, Washington can live with a nuclear Iran. They added that Washington's interests would be better served through allowing the Palestinians to have an independent state. Since he took office Obama has stood by the two-state solution, calling on Israel to stop building more settlements and halt enlarging existing ones. The Obama administration said it could talk to a Palestinian government that included members of Hamas. That came as a shock to Israel. Netanyahu's position is that Iran's nuclear programme is a threat to Israel's security, indeed, to its very existence. And although the Israeli prime minister is willing to concede self- government to the Palestinians he opposes the two-state solution. His is the standard Likud view, that all of Palestine belongs to the Jews and the Jews alone, and that any different people who may happen to reside there are entitled to self-rule but not independence. Netanyahu keeps arguing that Israel is not creating new settlements but allowing existing ones to expand through natural population increase, though he remains eager to create a new settlement in the Jordan Valley. During the US-Israeli encounters I had the impression that both sides stuck to their guns, an unusual turn of events and one that left Netanyahu visibly uncomfortable. Netanyahu spoke his piece and then heard a few things Israelis are not in the habit of hearing, at least not in Washington. US officials said that the creation of an independent Palestinian state is in America's interest and that the administration would continue working to make it happen. If all goes according to plan, President Hosni Mubarak should be in the White House on Tuesday. A few days later Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas will arrive in Washington. Then Obama will come to Cairo to deliver his much- awaited speech to the Islamic world. The game is on, and for a change America is listening to its own heart. What this means is that an independent Palestinian state is a definite possibility. After all, it is the one thing everyone agrees is needed to end the regional conflict. This much has been admitted by the Quartet, by the UN secretary- general, even by the Vatican. In his recent tour of the region Pope Benedict said that the Palestinian people have a right to an independent state on the "land of their forefathers". This is an interesting turn of phrase, for the reference to "forefathers" trumps the idea of the "promised land", linking Palestinians to their history. The idea of a Palestinian state is acceptable to most Israeli political groups, including Netanyahu's Likud. Listening to the debate in Israel today one gets the impression that the creation of a Palestinian state is not what worries Israelis. What worries them is the nature of that state and the future of the conflict as a whole. Israel doesn't want Palestinian refugees to return which is why it keeps harping on the idea of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel wants to annex some areas of the West Bank and redraw the boundaries of East Jerusalem. And it wants the Palestinian state to be disarmed and to have restricted relations with its Arab neighbours. There is also the question of ending the conflict and establishing full normalisation with Arab countries. Some people are trying to tempt Israel to make a deal by saying that normalisation could be made with Muslim countries too. Needless to say, this would mean a lot to the Israelis. With the exception of the ultra-right all Israeli parties are resigned to the idea of an independent Palestinian state. And although some Israelis are worried over the nature of that state, its capabilities and external relations, Israeli public opinion is on the whole in favour of its creation. Most Israelis believe that this is their ticket to peace, security and normalisation with the Arab and Islamic world. An opinion poll published on the day Netanyahu left for Washington showed 57 per cent of Israelis, including 40 per cent of Likud supporters, to be in favour of an independent Palestinian state. A Palestinian state will have to happen. But the timing of its creation is dependent on the Palestinians speaking with one voice and moderate Arabs backing them. The Arabs should help Obama's administration and advise on the best way to achieve this vision. Netanyahu may be a slippery demagogue but he is also a pragmatist. He became prime minister in 1996 on the promise of fighting off the Oslo Accords only to end up signing the Wye River deal two years later. Before he signed the deal Netanyahu said that he would not leave Washington without taking the Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard with him. Pollard is still in prison. When pressured, Netanyahu has shown himself more than willing to sign on the dotted line. (see pp.5&9)
