Forks in the Road

Two weeks after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his entourage gathered for a meeting in the White House’s Oval Office in Washington, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas strolled into that same office. “Time isn’t on our side,” he told U.S. President Barack Obama at the beginning of their meeting, “difficult things are happening in the Middle East.” For a moment it seemed that maybe he would surprise us with a message of conciliation, but those hopes proved false. Obama’s policy declaration that a Palestinian state would be created — and would be based on 1967 borders when it is created, with territorial exchanges — also didn’t help. Abbas presented his main demand for agreeing to extend negotiations by another year: a construction freeze and prisoner release (he would be willing to settle for one of the two).

After the meeting, the Americans recalibrated their expectations. The primary objective now is to extend negotiations by a year and avoid another American foreign policy failure. To attain this goal the Americans are even prepared to put aside their desire to issue a guideline of principles, which has been squandered, and its name was changed from “a document of principles for a final-status agreement,” to “a framework of principles for the continuation of negotiations.” After the U.S. proposed forgoing the document and settling for an oral declaration, now it is also conceding the declaration, just as long as the talks don’t fall apart.

At this stage the Americans are asking Netanyahu to show flexibility and for Abbas to continue negotiating. Netanyahu is not interested in paying the price demanded by Abbas — not in a construction freeze and not in a prisoner release. Both of these payments have already been made and have not provided the desired results. Netanyahu prefers tying the objective of extending talks to a payment he has already agreed to — the fourth phase of the prisoner release.

The Israeli threat to nullify the fourth phase was first reported last week on these very pages in a statement by Science and Technology Minister Yaakov Peri, the former Shin Bet chief and a member of the ministerial committee for Palestinian prisoner release. This week, all government ministers were already reiterating Peri’s message equally with the same gusto, regardless of faction or political inclination.

Interior Minister Gideon Sa’ar said, “There is no reason to release this group of terrorists when the Palestinian leadership declares that it intends to torpedo the negotiations.” The issue at hand is the release of 26 terrorists, part of the government’s decision to release 104 terrorists imprisoned prior to the Oslo Accords. It was determined that 26 prisoners would be released in each phase, and that the final release would take place on March 29.

Netanyahu takes every opportunity to explain he has no interest in pursuing negotiations at any cost, and that he will not abandon his basic demands. “We made some very complicated steps in order to enter negotiations, but within negotiations we have our fundamental positions we are maintaining,” he says, adding that those doing the leg work “know which side is rejectionist and which side is not.”

At this stage it is not clear if Israel will also release Israeli Arab terrorists, as promised by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to the Palestinians. According to Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, Kerry’s promise was forced on Israel and was made without Israel’s authorization. Contrary to the decision to implement the fourth phase of the prisoner release, releasing Israeli Arabs would require an additional government decision.

\

On one hand, Netanyahu, Ya’alon, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Economy and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett, most of them publicly, have stated they do not intend to release Israeli Arab terrorists. This, too, is a question of price. If negotiations are ultimately extended because these Israeli Arabs are released, with no additional payments, then this could also be approved by the government.

Cost and benefit

If the Palestinians want to turn the game on its head and refuse to extend talks, they are liable to return to the United Nations, unilaterally declare independence and announce the cessation of all cooperation with Israel (including negotiations) until further notice.

Ashraf al-Ajrami, a senior PA official (formerly the Minister of Prisoner Affairs), said Israel is obligated to implement the fourth phase due to the government’s decision, which was made based on agreements with the Americans. According to al-Ajrami, the fourth phase pertains to the nine months of negotiations already conducted — not to the extension of talks, whether this happens or not.

Al-Ajrami also says that Israel’s failure to meet its obligations, referring to the execution of the fourth phase, would lead the Palestinians to forgo any further talks with Israel, and that Abbas will immediately turn to international institutions — the U.N. General Assembly and the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Complaints will be submitted against Israel, as of course will be the demand to recognize the PA as Palestine — an independent state.

This week bereaved families met with Justice Minister Tzipi Livni and did not receive a practical answer. The relatives are concerned about a last-second political maneuver to facilitate the release of the most heinous murderers. Their concern pertains to the fact that once a government decision is made no one has the power to reverse it, which has been their experience in the past and which they experienced during the prisoner exchange that freed kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Schalit.

Despite the ministers’ warnings that the fourth phase will be quashed if negotiations are not extended, Netanyahu is mulling the cost-benefit aspects of the blame game versus the Palestinians over which side will be perceived as responsible for this round’s failure, if it indeed falls apart or is not extended.

It appears that Abbas also has to weigh the same costs versus benefits. He is at a critical juncture for himself. If the talks crumble, he will want to be remembered in the history books as the person who went to the U.N. and won recognition for an independent state. If he fails he will need to step down and will be remembered mostly for the corruption attributed to him by expelled senior PA official Mohammed Dahlan.

The name that Abbas and the Palestinians repeatedly raise ahead of the fourth phase is that of Marwan Barghouti. They dream of seeing him on the release list that Israel must still decide upon. From their view, this would be a huge achievement. Israel, in this difficult moral predicament, is dividing its list into three categories: terrorists who have committed minor crimes, terrorists who have committed major crimes and those whose crimes fall somewhere in between. It is abundantly clear which list Barghouti’s name falls on.

Danon applies the pressure

At the Likud faction meeting this week Deputy Defense Minister Danny Danon asked why we are being played for fools regarding the prisoner release deal, and of course aimed the question at Netanyahu. The prime minister is cautious in these faction meetings. Things that are said there, in front of a wider forum, are leaked in full to the press. Despite this, he answered honestly and told Danon that if the Palestinians don’t extend the negotiations the blame will fall on them, which will expose their true face. In such a case, it is imperative to avoid measures that will paint Israel as reneging on its promises.

Danon, who is known to butt heads with Netanyahu, escalated the clash by sending a letter to the prime minister, vowing to resign if the fourth phase is implemented and terrorists are set free. The only thing he left vague is whether he would resign if the fourth phase is implemented and the talks are not extended, or whether he would do so regardless.

Danon’s announcement also came after meeting with bereaved mothers at the Knesset on Wednesday, who asked for his help in blocking the scheduled prisoner release. “In recent weeks Abbas’ mask has been removed and it is clear that nothing will come of the negotiations. I will not sit in a government that releases terrorists in exchange for Tzipi Livni’s fantasies,” wrote Danon.

“Despite opposition in the past,” Danon continued, “we released terrorists in exchange for sitting around the negotiating table, in the hope that this would lead to Palestinian concessions. But the Palestinians have us wrapped around their little finger and are proud of it. They are exploiting our sincere desire for peace, while issuing threats of boycotts, in order to release terrorists from prison. I will stop lending a hand to this.”

The Likud Caucus is scheduled to meet on March 31 and Danon wants a debate over the Kerry outline added to the agenda, and for the Likud to declare its position on the matter in the party protocol at its conclusion. In actuality, this is an attempt to place diplomatic restrictions on the prime minister. In recent days Netanyahu has invested considerable effort on the political front. Netanyahu, who is quite averse to dealing with the Likud’s inner politics, has spent long hours in meetings with Likud Central Committee members. He is making phone calls and is attending conferences.

This is what he was busy doing this week, sitting in his office and phoning prominent activists, meeting with local authority heads and then with a group of the party’s founders. “Your display of confidence in me now is important,” Netanyahu says during these meetings, requesting a year of peace and quiet in the field and within the party’s institutions.

Netanyahu does not want the agenda dictated to him or confinements; he is fed up with Danon, who is a representative of the government but is attacking it as if he were a member of the opposition. “If he doesn’t resign like he has threatened, he will eventually be fired,” those in Netanyahu’s close circle are saying. Danon, for his part, claims to have heard similar threats in the past and says that he will not be bullied into constricting inner-party politics.

Ya’alon apologizes

Over these past few weeks the clash between the American administration and Ya’alon has intensified. Ya’alon has publicly admonished the United States in a belittling tone. The Americans have not bitten their tongues, attacking him back. During press briefings this week they accused him of sabotaging the security relations between the countries. This accusation was meticulously chosen, because Ya’alon believes it is possible to separate the U.S. that interferes in diplomatic matters from the U.S. that Israel can fully cooperate with on matters of security and defense.

This distinction was also addressed by Netanyahu, who this week said in the Knesset: “The U.S. was and still is our greatest ally. We appreciate the security and intelligence cooperation, which is at extremely high levels, and I also appreciate the U.S.’s efforts to help us advance the diplomatic process.” In the American view, the distinction cannot be made.

Netanyahu and Ya’alon disagree with Obama’s foreign policy. They believe he should have conducted matters differently. The policy of avoiding intervention in the face of aggressive acts or threats, here and everywhere else in the world, is a mistake. It damages the Americans and Israel, in a direct way.

But this is of no interest to the Americans. They are sick and tired of Ya’alon, who crossed a red line as far as they are concerned, by also questioning the need for American military aid. After the Americans complained about this to Netanyahu, Ya’alon apologized, but in a roundabout manner: in a conversation with his counterpart, U.S. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel, not to Kerry.

A front against Lapid

And then there is the foreign minister; Lieberman has been very quiet. Many are claiming he is “getting lost” and is taking too long to calculate new courses of action. The man who was acquitted in court and returned to being a prominent player, is afraid of making the wrong moves. On the one hand, Lieberman is trying to present a new image — more moderate, more stately, to pave the path to center stage, perhaps, who knows, all the way to the prime minister’s office. Then again, Lieberman is still deciding whether he is left, center or right, and it suddenly appears that not all is perfect in his world.

In addition, the prime minister is now facing another front, calculated on Netanyahu’s part, against Yesh Atid leader Yair Lapid. Two weeks ago, from Los Angeles, Netanyahu gave interviews to the Israeli press and sent clear signals to Finance Minister Lapid. The prime minister, from his perspective, was and remains the ruling minister on economic matters. Summarizing the first year of his third term, Netanyahu mostly presented Israel’s positive economic figures.

Netanyahu lives and breathes the economy, and when he said during his interviews that he would intervene to solve the housing crisis, it was obvious to Lapid that he was referring to the plan, which has been discussed back and forth for months already, to lower the value added tax, in conjunction with the Housing and Construction Ministry. Lapid, who along with his associates was surprised at the prime minister’s insinuations, has been careful not to attack Netanyahu publicly. His revenge, however, was short to follow.

During a discussion last week about the housing situation, the finance minister publicly announced his plan to eliminate VAT for young couples buying their first home. Those close to Netanyahu say Lapid was unnerved by the prime minister’s comments about intervening in the housing crisis, and therefore rushed to steal the credit. One way or another, it is already clear — on this new front as well, there is more to come.