By Christoph Schult, Gerhard Spörl and Gabor Steingart
Similar changes are taking place in Iran, where presidential elections have triggered an astonishing wave of emotions. The country plunged into a furious election campaign, in which one of the issues was Iran's position toward the United States. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was forced to listen to challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi's public accusations that he had damaged his country's international credibility with his tirades.
The news that Ahmadinejad had won the election triggered three days of large-scale protests in Tehran by Mousavi supporters, who claim that the election was rigged. Seven people were reported to have been killed during clashes on Monday evening between Mousavi supporters and militia loyal to Ahmadinejad.
Such events signal a beginning, even if the real balance of power in Tehran or Damascus is unlikely to change any time soon. Indeed, they reflect a new level of commitment on the part of the US, which, ironically enough, is gaining influence by taking a more modest approach than in the past.
Palestinian President Abbas's supporters, who are dependent on the US's good will, welcome the new tone. "We are in a position of strength vis-à-vis Israel for the first time," says Saeb Erekat, the Palestinian government's long-time chief negotiator. The Palestinians are no longer the only ones protesting against the building of settlements in the West Bank, now that even the US government is critical of the policy.
Roughly 300,000 people live in settlements near or in the West Bank cities of Hebron, Bethlehem and Ramallah, and another 200,000 live in occupied East Jerusalem. If an independent Palestinian state were established, Israel would undoubtedly keep the largest settlement blocs -- with their own roads, security forces and infrastructure -- effectively creating a state within the Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli government has, for some time, taken a laissez-faire approach to new settlers who are illegally setting up their trailers with the intention of putting down roots.
Netanyahu was elected precisely because of his unwillingness to compromise. In his view, the White House is breaking its word. In a cabinet meeting, he pointed out that former President George W. Bush had agreed to accept the expansion of the settlements. Secretary of State Clinton, however, disputes Netanyahu's version, saying that the Bush administration made no such assurances.
The settlements are important, but they are merely a symbol. The real issue is whether Israel is willing to grant the Palestinians their own state. Even ahead of Sunday's speech, there was evidence to suggest that Netanyahu was coming around to the idea of a two-state solution
"Israel will agree to the two-state solution in the end," Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak said after a telephone conversation with Netanyahu ahead of the Israeli prime minister's speech. Further evidence was provided by a clash during a meeting of the Likud Party's parliamentary group. Member of parliament Danny Danon begged his prime minister not to let himself be forced to accept a Palestinian state. Netanyahu replied by asking: "Do you have an alternative?"
Another Likud Knesset member, Tzipi Hotovely, cited the "right of Jews to their Biblical land," which right-wing, nationalist Likud traditionally supports. "But there are also Palestinians here," Netanyahu replied. "What status should they be given? Subjects? Citizens?" His remarks were met with silence.
The Three No's
Netanyahu was Israel's prime minister once before, between 1996 and 1999. At the time, he became famous for his three no's: no withdrawal from the Golan Heights, no withdrawal from East Jerusalem and no negotiations with the Palestinians under any preconditions. Today, all he has left is an awkward choice. If he distances himself too significantly from the three no's, his right-wing coalition will likely collapse. But if he doesn't go far enough, the pressure from Washington will only increase.
One of the new things about the Obama administration is the unified approach it is taking with its current policies. In Washington, the approach is called "public diplomacy," a reference to the fact that the president publicly identifies the US's national interests in the world's major conflicts and appeals to the participating countries to contribute to finding a solution. In addition to negotiating with his peers, Obama is talking to anyone willing to listen, just as he did during his campaign. Washington's diplomacy, in a new twist, involves including the public in its discussions about problems.
George Mitchell, Obama's special envoy for the Middle East, is in charge of the details. The 75-year-old former senator has served as chairman of the Walt Disney Company and has also headed an international law firm. He received great recognition for his role in the Northern Ireland peace negotiations.
In a report he wrote about the Middle East in 2001, he argued that the best way to end the violence would be to contain the Jewish settlements. Mitchell has Lebanese roots and is familiar with this part of the world. With a melancholy expression on his face and speaking in his sonorous voice, he repeatedly reminded his Israeli counterparts last week that they had made commitments and are now expected to abide by them. He has a reputation for never raising his voice and never relenting.
As in his days as a member of Israel's elite forces, Benjamin Netanyahu is once again facing an enormous obstacle. His country and his key ally are waiting to see how he'll make his way around it.
Translated from the German by Christopher Sultan
Post to other social networks:
Stay informed with our free news services:
| All news from SPIEGEL International | Twitter | RSS |
| All news from World section | RSS |
© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2009
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH
