As opposed to many senior Likud MKs, the former foreign minister doesn’t want one state — he wants ‘maximal separation’
When Yisrael Beytenu leader Avigdor Liberman said Sunday that the two-state solution would remain the government’s blueprint to solve the conflict with the Palestinians, it seemed that he positioned himself to the left of many senior Likud lawmakers, who last week declared their steadfast opposition to a Palestinian state.But Liberman’s vision of a “two-state solution” is a far cry from the more common understanding of the term.
According to Israel’s center-left camp — and virtually the entire international community — the preferred solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies in the creation a Palestinian state in borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps. According to this plan, any territorial exchanges, regardless of how large or small, are designed to enable Israel to keep the major settlement blocs in the West Bank.
While Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud head, has remained exceptionally vague about his vision for a final-status agreement — saying only that a future Palestinian state will have to be demilitarized and recognize Israel as a Jewish state — Liberman has never made a secret that he favors a “population exchange” leading to “maximal separation.”
So what do the two leaders, who are running on a joint slate in the January 22 elections, really mean when they speak of two states for two peoples?
Netanyahu’s stance remains the subject of much debate. Last week, some senior Likud MKs caused an uproar when they stated that the party does not support a two-state solution, despite a speech Netanyahu made in 2009 at Bar-Ilan University during which he in principle agreed to a demilitarized Palestinian state, if the Palestinians recognized Israel as a Jewish state.
Education Minister Gideon Sa’ar, who is No. 3 on the Likud-Beytenu joint list, said “two states for two peoples was never part of [Likud’s] election platform.” MK Tzipi Hotovely, No. 15 on the list, said the Bar-Ilan speech was a tactical maneuver by Netanyahu only meant to placate the world.
“Even when the prime minister spoke about the issue of two states, he didn’t speak about a state in the full sense. He spoke about a long list of conditions that he himself says have no chance of being fulfilled in the near future due to the actions of the other side,” MK Yariv Levin told The Times of Israel.
After moderates such as Dan Meridor were not elected to realistic slots on the Likud’s Knesset list for the upcoming elections and saw their places taken by nationalist hardliners, the majority — if not all — of future Likud MKs openly reject a Palestinian state.
Faced with a debate about Netanyahu’s true position, and in the absence of a party platform for the elections, a Likud spokesman said the prime minister still supported a two-state solution, if Israel’s conditions were met and its security guaranteed.
Netanyahu used to staunchly oppose a Palestinian state but ostensibly changed his mind (at least officially) after intense international pressure. Yet he seems in no hurry to accept it in practice, as evidenced by his fierce opposition to the United Nations’ recent upgrade of Palestine to an nonmember observer state and his determination to expand some Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
The “diplomatic process must be managed responsibly and sagaciously and not in undue haste,” he said Tuesday.
Whether or not Netanyahu really intends to ever agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state, his government’s official benchmark remains the Bar-Ilan speech, during which he declared unequivocally: “If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarized Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.”
Netanyahu has restated this position several times over the years. In April, he told CNN that he doesn’t want to govern the Palestinians or accept them as subjects or citizens of Israel. “I want them to have their own independent state. But a demilitarized state.” In September, Netanyahu told the United Nations General Assembly that it was incumbent on the two sides to “reach a mutual compromise, in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the one and only Jewish State.”
By insisting on the Palestinians’ recognition of Israel as the state of the Jewish people — a demand no current Palestinian leader is likely to meet — Netanyahu created a situation in which he can tell world leaders that he is in principle willing to accept Palestinian independence, without fearing that he will have to sign a final-status agreement in the foreseeable future.
Liberman, on the other hand, truly believes in a two-state solution. In contrast to the Likud hawks, he doesn’t oppose a Palestinian state — but his plan includes “land swaps” much more drastic than what most people have in mind when they use these terms.
So when he says, as he did on Israel Radio on Sunday, that Israel does not have “imperialistic ambitions,” that the government is ready to take “important diplomatic steps” when there is a suitable partner on the other side, and that the Bar-Ilan speech would serve as basis for any future coalition agreement, it might sound to some surprisingly conciliatory. But Liberman’s true vision of a final-status agreement remains controversial.
In 2006, Liberman told the American ambassador — as revealed by WikiLeaks — that states composed of different “nations” continue to experience conflict. Therefore, his proposal of Arab-Israeli peace includes a creative re-imagining of borders. According to his plan, a Palestinian entity would be created and include major Israeli-Arab population centers, such as the city of Umm el-Fahm, and the state of Israel would include Jewish settlement blocs near the Green Line.
On September 28, 2010, then-foreign minister Liberman presented his idea to the entire world: “Let me be very clear: I am not speaking about moving populations, but rather about moving borders to better reflect demographic realities,” Liberman told the United Nations General Assembly. “Ladies and gentlemen,” Liberman said from the podium in New York, “this is not an extraordinary insight, and is far less controversial than some may seek to claim.”
As other ethnic conflicts have shown in the past, it is often a “mismatch between borders and nationalities” that breeds conflict, Liberman posited. “Leading scholars and highly respected research institutions have even coined the term ‘Right-sizing the State’ to capture the idea that states and nations must be in balance in order to ensure peace. This is not a controversial political policy. It is an empirical truth.”
Immediately after Liberman’s speech — which unsurprisingly caused an international uproar — Netanyahu distanced himself from his foreign minister’s stance, with his aides stating that the “various issues of the peace deal will be discussed and determined only at the negotiating table and nowhere else.”
But Liberman has never disavowed his controversial plan. Yisrael Beytenu’s 2009 election platform stated that that “any solution must include maximal separation between the two nations.” In 2013, the party is running on a joint slate with Likud, and so far no official program has been released. But a party spokesman confirmed on Sunday that while Liberman doesn’t believe a peace agreement is attainable in the foreseeable future, he still believes in the principle of “population exchange.”
On Sunday, Liberman endorsed Netanyahu’s Bar-Ilan speech. But presently it doesn’t seem like either leader is eager to implement a two-state solution — any kind of two-state solution — in the near future.
yamit82 Said:
I have no expectations from Manhigut Yehudit but they are the only Likud faction that will not compromise on principles.
That is up to the voters. As always, we will get what we ask for.
Good luck with your principles.
That very well might happen some time in the future. There has been a faster method available for years – but… but… principles.
@ Shy Guy:
I have no expectations from Otzma but they are the only party that will not compromise on principles I believe in and they deserve to have a voice in the knesset and on committees. If you don’t have any power in the Likud it’s better to be in the opposition otherwise just by being in the Likud they are as guilty as BB for anything he does that goes against our national interests. You can’t be in and then claim but we did not agree. In politics you either agree, effect change or quit. Everything BB has done in the negative is shared by Feiglin because he supported the party over principle thus de facto supported BB.
I know the voters of Likud and except for a very small core of voters with a strong ideological viewpoint most are politically vacuous. I saw them up front and personal when they ethnically cleansed me in 83, when they still had some semblance of ideology and found them then as putting Begin and Likud above ideology, principle and the Land of Israel. There were more Mapai Labor votes against Camp David than from the Likud. Today it’s even worse in the Likud. They knew BB’s Past record as PM and Treasury SAAR. Yet they elected him again. That’s not a party I can support. I want to see the Likud relegated to where shinui and Kadima are and any strong party to the right replacing it.
yamit82 Said:
Will you say the same when Otzma sits in opposition, castrated?
@ Shy Guy:
The test is if they can influence and lead other not to just not cooperate but to oppose and force BB away from his intentions otherwise they have no real power or function remaining in the likud.
Good intentions don’t count.
yamit82 Said:
It’s no test or challenge to Manhigut to refuse to cooperate or participate in anything Netanyahu wants to implement which would put Israel in harms way.
Michael Dar:
Do you believe that a PM who willingly accepted Oslo, gave away Hebron and has allowed thousands of missiles to hit Israel including killing and wounding our own citizens without seriously trying to stop them agreed in principle to a Pali state, has any red lines?
@ Shy Guy:
That will depend on likud MK’s and your boy Moshe, won’t it? It would certainly be a credible Test for them and him.
I think the parties to the right of the Likud should withhold support of BB and Likud forming the next government unless they get ironclad guarantees from BB that all of them will be included in the coalition and that they would have veto power over which of the leftist parties BB can bring into the coalition. Remember how he screwed Kaztele and the National Union. I hope they haven’t. I would go for all of the parties to the right of BB or none of them. Won’t happen but it would make things interesting. I would even threaten throwing support to Shelly. 😛
@ Yidvocate:
It could be possible that Bibi is really manoeuvering trying to outsmart the world and the Arabs..I don’t like it because the hypocrit (and anti-Semitic) world and the Arabs (masters in deception) could well outmaoeuvering Bibi and get us trapped. We have a strong enough historic, moral, spiritiual and legal leverage to present our just case..and if that doesn’t finally works we can always recourse to dirty trick Arab style and war!
yamit82 Said:
We are damned either way with Netanyahu. You seem to be assuming that he will be forced to formed a coalition with the right. I’m worried it will be the left – again.
@ NormanF:
Weakness is strength ask Abbu Mazzen!!!!
Paradoxically the weaker BB is politically the stronger Israel is.
Shy Guy Said:
That is why paradoxically enough the fewer seats the Likud gets, the less likely it is Netanyahu and Lieberman can continue to pursue the delusional notion Bar Ilan will lead to peace.
Why this incessant talk of ripping out our heart and handing it over to our implacable enemies who exist only to destroy us? Is it not enough that the Arabs already have over 80% of the land mass that was promised by the world for a Jewish homeland? How is the common refrain “but what about the almost two millions Arabs that live under our jurisdiction” supposed to mitigate all consideration of the issue? Who cares. They can go home to Trans-Jordan, Gaza or jump into the sea for all we should care. This our land as irrevocably established by G-d, by history, by archeology, by international law, by force of arms, by moral right by U.N. Charter, by all rights in fact and we should not have to answer to the goyim for it. In fact we don’t we only think we do. Time to think otherwise!
NormanF Said:
The problem is not the Arabs. The problem is Israelis incessant urge to capitulate and appease. Netanyahu and Lieberman are the problem.
Its not going to happen because the Arabs reject “two states for two peoples” and they reject peace with Israel.
And the Arabs reject any settlement that does not preclude a rump Israel being flooded with millions of Arabs AKA “the right of return.”
Both Netanyahu and Lieberman can give Bar-Ilan lip service all they want. But the conditions for its realization don’t exist today nor will they appear in the foreseeable future.