The Israeli prime minister, he insisted this Sunday that “there will be a Palestinian State” after the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia recognized him, and warned that on his return from the UN General Assembly that will be held this week in the United States will announce an “response” to it.
In an official video released by his office, the Likud leader released a message to the countries that are recognizing the state of Palestine in response to the Israeli offensive in Gaza: “. A Palestinian state will not be established west of the Jordan River.” He has said a thousand times, he will not have been Palestinian or now that G7 countries, the UN Security Council and key allies of his own government, historically.
And yet, it was not always the case. There was a time when Netanyahu accepted the solution of two states, neighbors, in peace, to end the conflict. These were the years in which the then president of the United States, Democrat Barack Obama, promoted the peace process through his Secretary of State, John Kerry, endorsed with special emphasis a right of the Palestinians who had been floating in the resolutions of the United Nations for years. “Two states for two villages.” The negotiations were dead in 2014 and, since then, they have not resumed again.
In Palestine, he won the internal division and the. In Israel, radicalism grew in parallel, operations multiplied in Gaza and the West Bank and Netanyahu reached, briefly, with a giant coalition that only had the desire to throw it in common. But he returned soon, supported by ultra -nationalist and religious parties and, since then, since 2022, he has never been heard without a defense of the Palestinian State, as decaffeinated that it was that of the past.
Now it touches the total invasion of Gaza, annexation of the West Bank and denial of an internationally recognized law. And every time, like yesterday from the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Portugal, such as the one expected of France today.
Therefore, it is surprising to use the newspaper library and read the Netanyahu of another time. Edl most significant example is at the University of Bar Ilán, in the city of Ramat Gan, considered historical, in which he assumed the existence of the new country and in which he put the conditions to accept it, yes. “During my visit to Washington, I told President Obama that if we achieved a substantial agreement, the terminology would not raise any problem. And this is the content that I now express clearly: if we receive guarantees regarding the demilitarization and security needs of Israel, and if the Palestinians recognize Israel as the state of the Jewish people, we will be prepared, in the future agreement of peace, to reach a solution where a state Demilitarized Palestine with the Jewish state. ” Those were his exact words.
The moment was relative optimism, everyone who fits in an old conflict of almost 80 years, since it took place ten days after Obama gave, endorsing that exit, too. It seemed that something moved. Netanyahu, in his half hour of intervention, was interrupted several times by the applause, because it was understood that he was exposing a road map with solutions, feasible.
Hosni Mubarak, Benjamin Netanyahu, Barack Obama, Mahmud Abbas and Abdullah II of Jordan, opening negotiations in Washington, in 2010.
The Israeli leader was not described by Palestine as an “independent, viable, sovereign or adjoining” state, which are the terms that Palestinian politicians have used for decades in favor of their nation. In return, the Tel Aviv plan contained five main points-without calendar-and defended, above all that “Israel is and will continue to be the nation-state of the Jewish people.” With these words, Netanyahu made it clear that any resolution of the refugee problem would not include a massive return of Palestinians to what were Israel’s limits before 1967; There are up to five million Palestinian refugees today in the world, the largest diaspora.
He also focused on the need for Palestinian economic development, warning that “an economic peace is not a substitute for a political peace.” “Netanyahu understood the strong desire of the Palestinians to have their own state, and wanted to make it clear that both he and Israel believed that each one should have their own flag, their own national anthem and their own government; none would mean a threat to the security or survival of the other,” he says, for example, the analysis made by him. “Two facts: our link with the land of Israel and the Palestinian population that lives here […] We do not want to master them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose our culture or our flag, “said Prime Minister. Regarding them, he said:” We do not intend to build new settlements or expropriate land to expand existing settlements; But the natural expansion of the settlement will continue. “
Finally, he defended the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian State, with specific demands and “effective supervision” of the international community, so he called for the friends of Israel “in the international community, led by the United States, [para contraer] An explicit commitment in a future peace agreement, with effective security measures. ”
All these ideas were the axis of Netanyahu’s interventions in the following months. Even on October 7, 2013, again, he repeated the idea of the two states, but the wear and tear was already clear: he focused on maintaining that the root of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict resides in the Palestinian refusal to “recognize the national state of the Jewish people” and that therefore the negotiations. In all this time, three band contacts between Palestine, Israel and the US were taking place, until in the summer of 2014 the towel was thrown. Kerry’s crusade was nothing. The protective margin operation buried everything.
The background
Netanyahu was not the first Israeli leader to recognize this right to a Palestinian state, in reality. Ariel Sharon (conservative, in December 2003) and Ehud Olmert (Liberal, in January 2006), publicly accepted the idea of a solution of two states to the conflict. So far, other predecessors had directed their efforts to look for ways so that Israel could be disconnected, whether political or physically, to govern the Palestinians without giving the absolute control of these areas for security reasons.
Netanyahu differ from its predecessors because it supported a series of details in relation to the imminent Palestinian state, while ensuring that this state should be demilitarized, a very deep debate. In 1978, Prime Minister Menájem Beguin suggested the establishment of an autonomous political authority of an inaccurate nature for the Palestinian people, and in the and in related subsequent agreements, Prime Minister Isaac Rabin (murdered two years later, Labor) suggested the possibility of restoring specific territories to the Palestinian control.
In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak (Labor) sought to reach a negotiated agreement with the then OLP leader, Yasser Arafat, which would lead to a solution of two states. Like Sharon and Olmert, Netanyahu referred to the need to achieve a solution of two states and the security concerns that the Israelis had; However, he was the first president to propose a detailed framework to achieve this solution, not directly mentioning the borders OA Jerusalem. Israel remained fearful of a Palestinian state that had control over its own airspace or the Jordan area or allowed the access of foreign troops to its territory.
Today, Netanyahu has been radicalized or has been shown that the words of that time only served to content Obama. The basis of his government will never accept a Palestinian State. The last, this morning, of the Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben Gvir, who even calls to stop the president of the ANP, Mahmud Abbas. Hopeless.
