[Dr. Aaron Lerner - IMRA: Let's be clear about what we in Israel are
facing: President Obama wants his term to include a photo op praying at the
Al Aqsa Mosque with Mahmoud Abbas as part of his visit to the Jerusalem
capital of the sovereign Palestinian state. And the clock is ticking. So
any moves now by Israel to placate the White House are not going to suffice.
Freeze settlements outside the "blocs" (whatever those are) and the demand
will be to freeze construction in Jerusalem as well. Start discussions with
someone about the "contours" of an agreement and you will find that the
"contours" are suddenly being turned into a final document/marching orders.
Back up a moment: All the ideas so far have been based on the belief that
pigs can fly.
They can't.
We have been dealing with the pig pilots for two decades because we figured
that they would never actually reach the point that the Jewish State would
find itself in a situation that our survival relied on flying pigs.
But Mr. Obama is dead set to get to that point.
It’s a tuff reality. But if we follow the recommendations of Oded Eran I
fear we will only bring ourselves that much closer to meeting President
Obama's schedule.]

A New Government in Israel: Circumventing the Expected
INSS Insight No. 677, March 24, 2015
Oded Eran .

SUMMARY: A new Israeli government has yet to be formed and sworn in, but the
Israeli and international media have already predicted a collision between
Israel and the international community, including the United States. Given
the political ideology shared by the potential coalition partners and their
approach to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, that prediction is not hard
to make. Prime Minister Netanyahu will have to juxtapose the stability of
his future government against the risks involved in pursuing the
pre-election political promises of his own party and the other coalition
partners. It is recommended that when the coalition charts its future
international agenda, the Prime Minister ask to meet the political
leadership of the key international actors to conduct a frank discussion on
expectations, constraints, and possibilities. This time, his first stop
should be Washington – and not necessarily Capitol Hill.
.

A new Israeli government has yet to be formed and sworn in, but the Israeli
and international media have already predicted a collision between Israel
and the international community, including the United States. Given the
political ideology shared by the potential coalition partners and their
approach to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict, that prediction is not hard
to make.

Three major issues will dominate Israel's international agenda in the next
few years, and certainly until President's Obama departure from the White
House in January 2017: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; the Iranian nuclear
program; and the continued instability in the Middle East and its
ramifications for Israel's security.

Although Prime Minister Netanyahu recoiled from the statement whereby he
seemed to renege on his commitment to the two-state solution, it is unlikely
that the next government will be willing to negotiate a comprehensive
solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. After the election results
were known President Obama called to congratulate Netanyahu on his victory
and declared his clear preference for the two-state solution. Obama added,
'We've got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we
don't see a chaotic situation in the region." This statement gave rise to
speculations that the US is considering a new Security Council resolution
that will address key issues in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict or a new
version of the 2000 Clinton parameters, based on the efforts of Secretary of
State Kerry in 2013-14 to reach a solution. These ideas were already debated
within the US administration in the wake of the collapse of the Kerry
negotiations and have now resurfaced.

Yet whether or not any of these ideas is adopted, they will almost certainly
fail to produce the desired result, as neither the Israelis nor the
Palestinians are willing to return to the negotiating table to agree on the
framework for these negotiations, and they are certainly unwilling and
unable to reach a comprehensive solution to the core issues in the conflict.
Therefore, given this anticipated collision between Israel and the
international community, in tandem with the failure to produce a change in
the situation, the US would do well to probe with the new government in
Israel a plan of action that comprises three different categories of
bilateral, Israeli, and Palestinian measures:

a. Immediate steps, including resumed transfer of Palestinian tax
revenues collected by Israel, continued security cooperation, allowance of
the continued reconstruction of Gaza, an Israeli halt to construction in the
settlements – certainly outside the major settlements blocs, and the
suspension of Palestinian unilateral activity against Israel in
international institutions.

b. Bilateral Israeli-Palestinian talks on short and mid-term actions such
as Palestinian economic activities in Area C.

c. Separate discussions on the terms of reference for a comprehensive
solution to be held by the US, on behalf of the Quartet, with Israel and the
Palestinians.

This plan, if accepted by both Israel and the Palestinians, can be
formalized in a Security Council resolution that will call for the
establishment of a Palestinian state as part of an agreed-upon two-state
solution.


The collision between Israel and the US on Iran occurred even before the
final election results became known, and its effects are likely to
substantively erode the bilateral relations that have been constructed over
more than 50 years. Though not his intention, Prime Minister Netanyahu
knowingly irritated President Obama in his speech to the US Congress by
openly criticizing the agreement the US is negotiating with Iran. While this
criticism is likely to continue, the question remains how Israel and the US,
either separately or in concert, react to an agreement or the failure to
attain it. If they have not yet done so, the two governments would do well
to hold secret talks to address these and other developments such as
violations by Iran of an agreement. These discussions will not eliminate
Israel's criticisms of the reportedly emerging agreement with Iran, but will
help maintain the bilateral cooperation and understandings. Certain
understandings between the governments of the US and Israel may require
Congressional legislation in a process that can help restore the healthier
pattern in which Israel's long term security is a bipartisan concern shared
between the White House and the Congress.

The disintegration of the traditional structure of the Middle East poses
serious challenges to Israel's long term stability, as it undermines the
stability of Israel's neighbors and enables large tracts of the region to
become the homeland of Islamist fundamentalist movements whose aim is to
replace the state system with the caliphate of yore. This trend poses a
threat to US allies in the region and a danger of disrupting the global
economic order by endangering the flow of energy from the region and the
collapse of states possessing huge financial reserves. This is where the
strategic cooperation between primarily the US but also Europe and other
global players on the one hand and Israel on the other is invaluable. It is
clear that under the current circumstances Israel cannot and should not be
part of the coalition that tries to repel ISIS, but in a situation in which
neighborhood stability is under a serious threat, Israel will have to be
involved. This calls for an ongoing strategic dialogue independent, if not
totally delinked, from the Israeli-Palestinian and the Iranian files.

Prime Minister Netanyahu will have to juxtapose the stability of his future
government against the risks involved in pursuing the pre-election political
promises of his own party and the other coalition partners. It is
recommended that when the coalition charts its future international agenda,
the Prime Minister ask to meet the political leadership of the key
international actors to conduct a frank discussion on expectations,
constraints, and possibilities. This time, his first stop should be
Washington – and not necessarily Capitol Hill.

A second important and too often neglected stop should be Brussels, capital
of the EU and NATO. Not only is the EU Israel's largest trading partner, but
it represents a bloc of states larger than the sum of its own members. Bad
winds of boycott, sanctions, and pure anti-Semitism are blowing from what is
supposed to be Israel's cultural and economic hinterland. Europe is now in
search of solutions to several core issues of identity, substance, and a new
pattern for its relations with neighbors, and Israel ought to be part of
this process. Finally, the two neighboring capitals of Amman and Cairo must
likewise be high on the Prime Minister’s itinerary.