BICOM

Key Points

• In a very tough and resolute speech to the AIPAC conference in Washington, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reasserted Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem, and Israel’s strategic value to the US.
• Following on from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s firm statement yesterday, of the US position on Jerusalem, and on the connection between the Arab-Israeli conflict and the radicalism in the region, Netanyahu equally set out his own position, leaving open clear areas of disagreement.
• Using the opportunity to speak in front of a highly influential audience of US policy makers, Netanyahu reasserted the value Israel has for the US as a key strategic ally. He implicitly responded to suggestions that US support for Israel was damaging to its interests, asserting that US-Israel strategic cooperation saves American lives.
• Whilst both Clinton and Netanyahu reaffirmed the strength of the US-Israel relationship, the speeches left little doubt as to the areas of disagreement between the two sides. However, setting out the differences could create an opportunity for defining a new way forward. Netanyahu will meet President Obama later today and discuss a package of confidence building measures aimed to re-establish the grounding for indirect talks with the Palestinians
• Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu reasserted his commitment to the peace process and a two state solution, and Israel’s readiness to make compromises for peace, but insisted that the Palestinians must also be ready to make compromises.

The content and significance of Netanyahu’s speech

In his speech to AIPAC last night, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu balanced a clear reassertion of his commitment to the peace process with a firm defence of Jewish building in Jerusalem neighbourhoods over the 1949 Armistice Line (the Green Line), and of Israel’s strategic value to the US. Like Secretary of State Clinton, Netanyahu took the opportunity to resolutely set out his position on areas of disagreement between Israel and the United States.

He sought to reaffirm the importance of the US-Israel relationship. He spoke of Israel’s role as a strategic ally to the US, and the common threats the US and Israel face. Netanyahu responded implicitly to recent statements from senior US military commander General Petraeus that the Arab-Israeli conflict, and America’s perceived favouritism for Israel was making it harder to promote the US agenda in the region. He declared that strategic cooperation against the threat of militant Islam was, ‘important for Israel and is helping to save American lives.’ He also argued that militant Islam hates Israel because it represents the West, and not the other way around.

Netanyahu repeated Israel’s commitment to a two state solution and the peace process. He made a direct appeal to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas to join in him in peace negotiations. He recalled the steps his government had taken in the last year, including the removal of roadblocks and announcing a moratorium on new settlement construction in the West Bank. He declared, ‘Israel stands ready to make the compromises necessary for peace, but we expect the Palestinians to compromise as well.’ 

At the same time he defended Israel’s right to continue building in Jewish neighbourhoods of Jerusalem which are over the Green Line. Netanyahu argued that since all sides, including the Palestinians, recognised that these neighbourhoods would stay part of Israel in a final peace deal, construction there did not interfere with negotiating a two state solution. However, whilst recalling the undeniable historic attachment of the Jewish people to Jerusalem, he conspicuously did not repeat the slogan that Jerusalem should remain eternally undivided. The Clinton parameters in 2000 proposed a solution whereby Jewish neighbourhoods, including those over the Green Line, would remain part of Israel, and Arab neighbourhoods would become part of a Palestinian state.

In another reference to the shape of a future peace deal, Netanyahu implied that he does not expect Israel to retain sovereignty over the whole of the Jordan Valley in a future peace deal. Netanyahu said, ‘a peace agreement with the Palestinians must include an Israeli presence on the eastern border of a future Palestinian state.’ He argued that Israel’s experiences in Gaza and Southern Lebanon meant that Israel would have to retain a presence on the ground to prevent arms smuggling. However, he suggested that these security arrangements could be reviewed over time, implying that Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley could be temporary, in the context of a peace agreement.

Netanyahu also spoke about the Iranian nuclear threat, describing it as a threat not only to Israel, but to the region and the world. He recalled that Western powers acted too late to prevent the Nazi Holocaust and asserted that, ‘Israel expects the international community to act swiftly and decisively to thwart this danger. But we will always reserve the right to self-defence.’  This was a clear hint at Israel’s readiness to act unilaterally against  if the international community fails to stop the regime in Tehran acquiring nuclear weapons. 

He condemned the Goldstone Report into Operation Cast Lead and called for an end to what he saw as unfair judgement of Israel in the world. He accepted that Israel was not above criticism, stating that ‘in Israel self criticism is a way of life’. But he called for Israel to be judged equally to other nations.

The speech left open the clear disagreement between Israel and the United States over settlement construction in East Jerusalem. However, as stated by Secretary of State Clinton yesterday, the two sides are in negotiation over a series of Israeli and mutual confidence building measures which will lay the groundwork for the renewal of indirect peace talks. These measures will no doubt be on the agenda for what is likely to be a frank meeting between Netanyahu and President Obama later today. Both Israel and the US share a clear agenda to get the peace process moving. For that reason both sides have an incentive to find a way to move beyond the current disagreement.