The Institute for National Security Studies provided a platform at its annual conference on Tuesday for participants to learn about the slightly different agendas of two senior ministers, who both disagree with the diplomatic process Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is championing. The divide is between Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, who claims there is no partner with whom to make peace based on the "two states, two peoples" solution, and Economy Minister Naftali Bennett (Habayit Hayehudi), who would oppose such a proposition even given the appropriate partner. The common thread linking the two is tenuous at best. When it was Netanyahu's turn to speak, he avoided debate, focusing instead on driving home his own stance -- that there can be no peace deal without Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state. It is usually the role of the Palestinians to demand a balance between the two sides; for example, if a strip of land is claimed in Judea and Samaria, Israel would be expected to return a similar expanse from within the Green Line. This time, Netanyahu armed himself with this strategy: no recognition of a Palestinian homeland without recognition of a Jewish homeland. A source familiar with the details of U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's proposal says the discord among the coalition is over an egg that has yet to be laid. The U.S. will not present a deal for a framework or a framework for a deal. At the most, the two sides will be asked to make their positions clear. The gap between this and the issue of leaving Jewish settlements under Palestinian control is great. The subject, however, does stir one's curiosity and engage the imagination, as it did to Bennett, who presented the issue with far-fetched notions unlikely to convince an audience. The massacre of Jews in Hebron in 1929 and the lynching of two Israel Defense Forces reservists in Ramallah in 2000 were painful events etched in Israeli history, but is this the only proof that it will be impossible for a Jewish framework to exist in Palestine- Netanyahu did not discuss the issue. INSS Executive Director and former Military Intelligence chief Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin did so instead, telling Bennett in a debate broadcast on Channel 1 that he was familiar with many other instances in which Palestinians actually helped Israelis who had lost their way, entering Palestinian territory by mistake. It is unclear where this is all leading, and will remain so until the Kerry deal is presented to both sides. Apparently the Palestinians are concerned and have sent a delegation to Washington to speak with the American negotiating team. Are they aware of something that concerns them in the agreement? Something they would not be able to accept? If indeed there are problematic stipulations in the American-brokered agreement, the logical step (following the Palestinian lead) would not be to argue with Kerry but to speak with him to ensure that what is good for Israel will not be erased from the deal and whatever is not will be toned down as much as possible. At the conference, Yadlin asked former CIA Director David Petraeus if there were any signs of fraying in the usually strong U.S.-Israel cooperation. The question was an important one, but Petraeus, while impressive, could not possibly answer on behalf of the current U.S. administration. Is there no chance of negotiating with the Palestinians, or must we strive for a deal with the Americans, the Europeans and maybe the Arab League? The INSS makes such a proposal, but it remains undeveloped and unsubstantiated, shifting between concessions and firm commitment to security considerations on the ground. The diplomatic journey continues.
