The negotiations with the Palestinians are taking place under a shroud from which, from time to time, conflicting reports emerge: optimism on the part of John Kerry and pessimism expressed by Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas. A recent story in the New York Times might clarify these contradictions. According to this report, the squabbling over the Jordan Valley indicates that on the issue of borders and security arrangements the two sides are closer to an agreement. The real dispute is over the demand to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. At first glance, this appears strange. If agreement can be reached on practical issues such as borders, why should there be a confrontation over a historical narrative that is connected to a philosophical debate of nation versus religion as the defining core of Judaism?

However, Netanyahu’s insistence has its merits. First of all it shows that he’s serious. Previous prime ministers agreed to a two-state solution since their affinity to the settlements was linked to political and security considerations. When demographic considerations and political distress overshadowed the benefits of the settlements, they agreed to divide the disputed land. For Netanyahu, territorial compromise is not just a tactical maneuver. It’s an ideological sea change. Abiding by classic Revisionist Zionist teachings, the fulfilment of modern Jewish identity for Netanyahu means sovereignty over the entire Land of Israel. He can justify an ideological turnover only by showing it to be the realization of what Revisionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky termed “The Iron Wall.” In that 1923 essay he stated that the Palestinians would only recognize the right of Jews to their land after they realized that they cannot defeat them by force of arms. Now the time has come for the second phase of the “Iron Wall” – compromise.

Read the article in full at Haaretz