The Two-State Solution and Netanyahu's Intransigence
HIRAYAMA Kentaro / Journalist
February 16, 2016
Twenty years ago in 1996, Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister of Israel for the first time. Since then, his rule has been punctuated by respective administrations led by Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert. But in terms of the total number of years in power, Netanyahu has a clear lead over the others with more than ten years, and is approaching the fourteen year record held by Ben-Gurion, the first prime minister of Israel.
In 1995, a year before the Netanyahu government was formed, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a far-right Israeli youth who criticized as "betrayal" to the motherland the various concessions made to the Palestinian side following the Oslo Accords. Having succeeded Rabin as leader of the Labour Party, Shimon Peres hesitated over holding early elections despite predictions of an easy victory on the back of overwhelming voter sympathy towards the late prime minister. In the meantime, events including a series of suicide bus bombings by Palestinian extremists affiliated with Hamas turned the tide of public opinion, and Netanyahu beat Peres by a slim margin at the polls.
In recent years, each of the Israeli prime ministers listed above has at least shown some gesture towards advancing the peace talks. Barak proposed dividing the Old City of Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine. Sharon implemented a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and promised to accommodate a Palestinian state that could coexist with Israel. Olmert proposed what amounted to a full-scale withdrawal from the West Bank of the Jordan River occupied by Israel. However, there is nothing on Netanyahu's track record in this regard. He has limited himself to occasionally declaring a "return to talks without preconditions" while quietly proceeding to seize Palestinian land and expand Jewish settlements, thus raising the hurdle for the creation of a self-sustainable Palestinian state as proposed under a UN Security Council Resolution.
The massive influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union has led to a rightward shift among Israeli voters, as leftists and moderate liberals have dwindled in number with the falling birthrate. Meanwhile, the construction of a "fence" around the occupied territories has dramatically reduced suicide bombing attacks on Israeli land, heightening the sense of security. These factors have combined to erode public interest in a political settlement involving territorial concessions. It is easy to find fault with the weakness of the Palestinian National Authority, which must seek support from the Israeli army and police to fight infiltration by Islamic extremists such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS) in the West Bank. But no less important is the declining influence and pressure exercised by the US administration of President Barack Obama. There was no mention of the Palestinian issue in his State of the Union speech at the start of 2016.
Having lived in the United States for many years, Netanyahu is eloquent in English and is masterful at playing the media. With American voters, he is fond of using the killer phrase of an "existential threat" against Israel, or the Jewish people. In addition to warning that missiles will start falling on Tel-Aviv Ben Gurion International Airport if any part of the West Bank is annexed to Palestine, another one of his favorite ploys is to seize every opportunity to stress the threat posed by Iran.
The United Nations and the international community have been exploring ways to bring peace to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf by convincing Iran to give up its attempt at nuclear armament, countering IS to end civil strife in Syria and Iraq, and easing the conflict between Shi'ite and Sunni factions that revolve around Iran and Saudi Arabia. How can Netanyahu be so cynical about such efforts? Even as various sanctions against Iran are being lifted following the conclusion of the nuclear talks, the Netanyahu government has not stopped deriding such a conciliatory policy and has vowed to continue demanding a reversal of the policy.
As for Israel's relationship with Palestine, Prime Minister Netanyahu's anti-Palestinian feelings seem to be rooted in his "historical perception" about the Holocaust. For instance, in a speech to the World Zionist Congress last fall, he claimed that Palestinians were the ones who convinced Hitler of the necessity to exterminate the Jews. Iran's return to the international community and the US presidential election, among other developments, are expected to introduce greater volatility to the situation in the coming years. Will Netanyahu change his words and deeds accordingly, or will he not?
As a Japanese journalist with a keen interest in the long-term stability of the Middle East region based on the creation of a Palestinian state and the "two-state" solution of coexistence between Israel and Palestine, I am hanging my hopes on the good sense that is undoubtedly held by most citizens of Israel and by Jewish people outside Israel, particularly those living in the United States .
Kentaro Hirayama is former NHK Executive Commentator.
In 1995, a year before the Netanyahu government was formed, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a far-right Israeli youth who criticized as "betrayal" to the motherland the various concessions made to the Palestinian side following the Oslo Accords. Having succeeded Rabin as leader of the Labour Party, Shimon Peres hesitated over holding early elections despite predictions of an easy victory on the back of overwhelming voter sympathy towards the late prime minister. In the meantime, events including a series of suicide bus bombings by Palestinian extremists affiliated with Hamas turned the tide of public opinion, and Netanyahu beat Peres by a slim margin at the polls.
In recent years, each of the Israeli prime ministers listed above has at least shown some gesture towards advancing the peace talks. Barak proposed dividing the Old City of Jerusalem between Israel and Palestine. Sharon implemented a unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and promised to accommodate a Palestinian state that could coexist with Israel. Olmert proposed what amounted to a full-scale withdrawal from the West Bank of the Jordan River occupied by Israel. However, there is nothing on Netanyahu's track record in this regard. He has limited himself to occasionally declaring a "return to talks without preconditions" while quietly proceeding to seize Palestinian land and expand Jewish settlements, thus raising the hurdle for the creation of a self-sustainable Palestinian state as proposed under a UN Security Council Resolution.
The massive influx of immigrants from the former Soviet Union has led to a rightward shift among Israeli voters, as leftists and moderate liberals have dwindled in number with the falling birthrate. Meanwhile, the construction of a "fence" around the occupied territories has dramatically reduced suicide bombing attacks on Israeli land, heightening the sense of security. These factors have combined to erode public interest in a political settlement involving territorial concessions. It is easy to find fault with the weakness of the Palestinian National Authority, which must seek support from the Israeli army and police to fight infiltration by Islamic extremists such as al-Qaeda and Islamic State (IS) in the West Bank. But no less important is the declining influence and pressure exercised by the US administration of President Barack Obama. There was no mention of the Palestinian issue in his State of the Union speech at the start of 2016.
Having lived in the United States for many years, Netanyahu is eloquent in English and is masterful at playing the media. With American voters, he is fond of using the killer phrase of an "existential threat" against Israel, or the Jewish people. In addition to warning that missiles will start falling on Tel-Aviv Ben Gurion International Airport if any part of the West Bank is annexed to Palestine, another one of his favorite ploys is to seize every opportunity to stress the threat posed by Iran.
The United Nations and the international community have been exploring ways to bring peace to the Middle East and the Persian Gulf by convincing Iran to give up its attempt at nuclear armament, countering IS to end civil strife in Syria and Iraq, and easing the conflict between Shi'ite and Sunni factions that revolve around Iran and Saudi Arabia. How can Netanyahu be so cynical about such efforts? Even as various sanctions against Iran are being lifted following the conclusion of the nuclear talks, the Netanyahu government has not stopped deriding such a conciliatory policy and has vowed to continue demanding a reversal of the policy.
As for Israel's relationship with Palestine, Prime Minister Netanyahu's anti-Palestinian feelings seem to be rooted in his "historical perception" about the Holocaust. For instance, in a speech to the World Zionist Congress last fall, he claimed that Palestinians were the ones who convinced Hitler of the necessity to exterminate the Jews. Iran's return to the international community and the US presidential election, among other developments, are expected to introduce greater volatility to the situation in the coming years. Will Netanyahu change his words and deeds accordingly, or will he not?
As a Japanese journalist with a keen interest in the long-term stability of the Middle East region based on the creation of a Palestinian state and the "two-state" solution of coexistence between Israel and Palestine, I am hanging my hopes on the good sense that is undoubtedly held by most citizens of Israel and by Jewish people outside Israel, particularly those living in the United States .
Kentaro Hirayama is former NHK Executive Commentator.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
「二国共存」とネタニヤフ政権
平山健太郎 / ジャーナリスト
2016年 2月 16日
ベンヤミン・ネタニヤフ氏が、イスラエルの首相に初めて就任したのは、今から20年前の１９９６年である。バラク、シャロン、オルメルトの各政権がその後割り込んでいるが、ネタニヤフ政権のこれまでの延べ年数が10年余と際立って長く、初代ベングリオン首相の記録した14年に迫っている
ネタニヤフ政権が成立する前年の１９９５年、労働党のラビン首相は「オスロ合意」以後のパレスチナ側への様々な譲歩を、祖国に対する「裏切り」と見るイスラエル極右の青年に暗殺された。ラビン氏への圧倒的な同情票で楽勝が予測されたにもかかわらず、労働党の後任シモン・ペレス氏は選挙の早期実施をためらい、この間に続発したパレスチナ過激派（ハマス）の市内バスに対する自爆テロ事件などで世論が逆転。ネタニヤフ氏が僅差でペレス氏を破った。
列記した近年の歴代首相のうち、バラク氏は、エルサレム旧市街のパレスチナ側との分割案を提示。シャロン氏はガザからの一方的撤退を実施したほかイスラエルと共存し得るパレスチナ独立国家の容認を約束。オルメルト氏は、ヨルダン川西岸占領地からのほぼ全面的な撤退案の提示など、和平交渉を前進させる少なくもジェスチャーをそれぞれ示している。しかし、ネタニヤフ氏については実績皆無と言ってよかろう。「前提条件なしの対話の再開」という時折りの宣言が限度であり、この間パレスチナ側の土地の収奪とユダヤ人入植地の増設を粛々と進め、国連安保理の決議も提示している自立可能なパレスチナ国家の創設を困難にしている。
旧ソ連からの大量の移住者の流入によるイスラエル有権者の右傾化、少子化による左翼やリベラル中間層の減少、占領地を取り巻く「分離壁」でイスラエル領内での自爆テロ事件が激減した安心感などの要因が重なり、領土上の譲歩が絡む政治解決への関心がイスラエル市民の間で希薄になっている。ヨルダン川西岸へのアルカーイダやイスラム国（ＩＳ）などイスラム過激派の浸透を防ぐためにイスラエル軍や警察の助力に頼らざるを得ないパレスチナ自治政府の弱体ぶりも勿論問題だが、米オバマ政権の影響力や、圧力低下も見逃せない。２０１６年の年頭教書でもパレスチナ問題への言及はなかった。
アメリカでの生活が長く、英語やメディア好みの弁舌に熟達しているネタニヤフ氏が、自国やアメリカの有権者に好んで使う殺し文句は、イスラエルあるいはユダヤ人に対する「存亡の脅威」という言葉だ。ヨルダン川西岸のどこそこかパレスチナ国家に編入されれば、そこからテルアビブ国際空港にミサイルが飛んでくるといった類の警告に加え、至るところでイランの脅威を強調するのも常とう手段だ。
イランの核武装への試みを棚上げさせ、ＩＳ対策やシリア、イラクの内戦終息、イラン、サウジアラビア両国を軸とするシーア、スンニ両宗派の抗争の鎮静化など、中東・湾岸に平和をもたらす道を模索する国連や国際世論に何故これほどシニカルでいられるのだろう。核交渉の妥結に続きイランへの各種の制裁が解除されているさなかにもネタニヤフ政権は、この種の融和政策への罵倒をやめず、その政策転換を求め続けるとしている。
パレスチナとの関係に話を戻せば、ネタニヤフ首相の反パレスチナ感情は、ホロコーストについての彼の「歴史認識」にすら根ざしているように見える。「ヒトラーにホロコーストの必要性を吹き込んだのはパレスチナ人だ」という昨秋の世界シオニスト会議での彼の演説もその一例だ。イランの国際社会への復帰や、アメリカ大統領選挙などで状況の流動化が予想される今後、ネタニヤフ氏の言動がどう変貌するか、あるいはしないのか？
パレスチナ国家の創設によるイスラエルとパレスチナの「二国共存」を軸にした中東地域の長期的な安定に強い関心を注いできた日本の言論人として、イスラエル市民や在外とりわけ在米ユダヤ人の多くが持っているに違いない良識に期待をつなぎたい。
(筆者は元NHK解説主幹）
ネタニヤフ政権が成立する前年の１９９５年、労働党のラビン首相は「オスロ合意」以後のパレスチナ側への様々な譲歩を、祖国に対する「裏切り」と見るイスラエル極右の青年に暗殺された。ラビン氏への圧倒的な同情票で楽勝が予測されたにもかかわらず、労働党の後任シモン・ペレス氏は選挙の早期実施をためらい、この間に続発したパレスチナ過激派（ハマス）の市内バスに対する自爆テロ事件などで世論が逆転。ネタニヤフ氏が僅差でペレス氏を破った。
列記した近年の歴代首相のうち、バラク氏は、エルサレム旧市街のパレスチナ側との分割案を提示。シャロン氏はガザからの一方的撤退を実施したほかイスラエルと共存し得るパレスチナ独立国家の容認を約束。オルメルト氏は、ヨルダン川西岸占領地からのほぼ全面的な撤退案の提示など、和平交渉を前進させる少なくもジェスチャーをそれぞれ示している。しかし、ネタニヤフ氏については実績皆無と言ってよかろう。「前提条件なしの対話の再開」という時折りの宣言が限度であり、この間パレスチナ側の土地の収奪とユダヤ人入植地の増設を粛々と進め、国連安保理の決議も提示している自立可能なパレスチナ国家の創設を困難にしている。
旧ソ連からの大量の移住者の流入によるイスラエル有権者の右傾化、少子化による左翼やリベラル中間層の減少、占領地を取り巻く「分離壁」でイスラエル領内での自爆テロ事件が激減した安心感などの要因が重なり、領土上の譲歩が絡む政治解決への関心がイスラエル市民の間で希薄になっている。ヨルダン川西岸へのアルカーイダやイスラム国（ＩＳ）などイスラム過激派の浸透を防ぐためにイスラエル軍や警察の助力に頼らざるを得ないパレスチナ自治政府の弱体ぶりも勿論問題だが、米オバマ政権の影響力や、圧力低下も見逃せない。２０１６年の年頭教書でもパレスチナ問題への言及はなかった。
アメリカでの生活が長く、英語やメディア好みの弁舌に熟達しているネタニヤフ氏が、自国やアメリカの有権者に好んで使う殺し文句は、イスラエルあるいはユダヤ人に対する「存亡の脅威」という言葉だ。ヨルダン川西岸のどこそこかパレスチナ国家に編入されれば、そこからテルアビブ国際空港にミサイルが飛んでくるといった類の警告に加え、至るところでイランの脅威を強調するのも常とう手段だ。
イランの核武装への試みを棚上げさせ、ＩＳ対策やシリア、イラクの内戦終息、イラン、サウジアラビア両国を軸とするシーア、スンニ両宗派の抗争の鎮静化など、中東・湾岸に平和をもたらす道を模索する国連や国際世論に何故これほどシニカルでいられるのだろう。核交渉の妥結に続きイランへの各種の制裁が解除されているさなかにもネタニヤフ政権は、この種の融和政策への罵倒をやめず、その政策転換を求め続けるとしている。
パレスチナとの関係に話を戻せば、ネタニヤフ首相の反パレスチナ感情は、ホロコーストについての彼の「歴史認識」にすら根ざしているように見える。「ヒトラーにホロコーストの必要性を吹き込んだのはパレスチナ人だ」という昨秋の世界シオニスト会議での彼の演説もその一例だ。イランの国際社会への復帰や、アメリカ大統領選挙などで状況の流動化が予想される今後、ネタニヤフ氏の言動がどう変貌するか、あるいはしないのか？
パレスチナ国家の創設によるイスラエルとパレスチナの「二国共存」を軸にした中東地域の長期的な安定に強い関心を注いできた日本の言論人として、イスラエル市民や在外とりわけ在米ユダヤ人の多くが持っているに違いない良識に期待をつなぎたい。
(筆者は元NHK解説主幹）
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟