Alon Pinkas, a former advisor to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, discusses the three peace processes currently relevant to the the new Israeli administration in an interview with Middle East Progress. He evaluates the Israel-Palestine track, the Israel-Syria track, and proposals to secure peace between Israel and all the Arab countries. He concludes that an all-encompassing peace process remains most tempting for Israel even though Netanyahu retains a hard-line approach towards both the Palestinians and Syria. Netanyahu refuses to affirm publicly and unequivocally the need for a two-state solution and has not expressed a willingness to return (or give-up on, depending on your political point of view) the Golan Heights to Syria. Notably, Pinkas states:
“There are three circles here. There is the Israeli-Palestinian circle, there is the Israeli-Syrian track and then there is an outer envelope of the regional approach. Now in the regional approach, there are two manifestations, one is the Arab League Initiative of 2002 that is obviously going to be modified and repackaged. But there is another manifestation, a very recent one, and that is King Abdullah of Jordan’s plan—what he calls the 57-state plan, which to many Israelis including President Peres and Defense Minister Barak, a) seems to be a very appealing, and b) a framework that should be acceptable to Israel as long as it is a framework for deliberations and negotiations, rather than a take it or leave it attitude.
I think Netanyahu is going to say that the two-state solution is a wonderful bumper sticker, it appeals to many people’s logic, but realistically and practically on the ground it is just not viable at this point. Which is why he is going to argue that we need to invest in a nation-building system—not in a patronizing way that we will build their state for them, but nation-building in the sense that Israel will be able to assist economically, administratively and any other way. And he’ll call on the world to be engaged in that, and build the institutions. Because clearly, what you see in the Palestinian Authority ever since Oslo is a dysfunctional political system that cannot guarantee security in terms of stemming terrorism. If that leads to the creation of a stable and functional Palestinian Authority, than I think that Netanyahu himself at some point will not rule out a two-state solution. Just declaring it right now seems to him to be catering to formulas that have not worked.”
“On Syria, I think something is maybe growing in the midst here that we can’t foresee right now. The strategic advantage in Netanyahu’s eyes of the negotiation process with the Syrians is clear. I think that he understands the price that Israel will have to pay. Supposedly, it’s only a real estate dispute: give the Golan Heights back and you will get peace, not an American-Canadian type of peace, but an Egypt-Israeli peace. Cold peace is better than a hot war. But it’s more than that. Not the fact that they are hosting terrorist organizations, which in itself negative, but let’s assume that is something they can deal with in a relatively short period of time, but the nature of the issue with Syria is its alliance with Iran. Now, obviously Israel is realistic enough to know that you can’t demand as a precondition that Syria sever its ties with Iran just as an exchange to entering negotiations. By the same token, you need to understand fully what you are getting in return or whatever territorial compromises you are going to make on the Golan.
I think that on the Syrian track, Netanyahu is much more skeptical of their intentions and interests and thinks that it is not exactly around the corner. And if anything, Netanyahu awaits further American indication of how they see the Syrians.”
“The regional approach is something that is going to be much more appealing because of the Iranian threat. The process itself has the potential of a moderating effect. Everyone is around the table. It is not a substitute for bilateral negotiations and I don’t think a 57-nation roundtable is going to solve the problems that the Palestinians feel they encounter every day. I don’t think for one second Netanyahu has any illusions about that. But the regional approach is much more consistent with American interests and I think that both on the eve of his meeting with Obama, but also we can talk of the aftermath of his meeting, Netanyahu, or Israel for that matter, is going to have to make some adjustments, that would be compatible with how the United States is going to perceive the region. Israel should never relent and never compromise on what it deems absolutely vital for its national security, but everything else that is less than vital for national security, modifications and adjustments and reviewing of policies is going to have to be made.”
“The regional approach is something that is going to be much more appealing because of the Iranian threat. The process itself has the potential of a moderating effect. Everyone is around the table. It is not a substitute for bilateral negotiations and I don’t think a 57-nation roundtable is going to solve the problems that the Palestinians feel they encounter every day. I don’t think for one second Netanyahu has any illusions about that. But the regional approach is much more consistent with American interests and I think that both on the eve of his meeting with Obama, but also we can talk of the aftermath of his meeting, Netanyahu, or Israel for that matter, is going to have to make some adjustments, that would be compatible with how the United States is going to perceive the region. Israel should never relent and never compromise on what it deems absolutely vital for its national security, but everything else that is less than vital for national security, modifications and adjustments and reviewing of policies is going to have to be made.”
