TWO-STATE STRESS TEST

Significance of indicator

Israeli belief in the possibility of and support for a two-state solution – both in principal and as a likely outcome in the short-term – is a critical factor in dictating a governing coalition’s agenda and its willingness to take risks. It is worth noting that, despite current levels of support among the Israeli public, when the Israeli government reached peace agreements in the past and worked to rally public opinion behind it, the figures changed in its favour, even as the opposition became angrier and even violent. Of course significant public support can also lead to changes in coalition composition and in the balance of parties within parliament between those more or less supportive of progress on peace.

Scoring guide

0 – Israelis overwhelmingly support the two-state solution, support negotiations with the Palestinian leadership in order to reach that solution, and believe that the negotiations have a realistic short-term or mid-term chance of success.

1 – Israelis strongly support the two-state solution and somewhat support negotiations with the Palestinian leadership to reach that solution, but they do not believe that the negotiations will result in two states in the immediate future.

2 – Israelis significantly support a two-state solution and support negotiations with the Palestinian leadership, but they do not believe that those negotiations can result in a two-state solution within any reasonable timeframe.

3 – A slim majority of Israelis support a two-state solution. Those Israelis who support negotiations though mainly support them for the purposes of conflict management rather than conflict resolution.

4 – A slim majority of Israelis reject a two-state solution and oppose negotiations to that end.

5 – A strong majority of Israelis reject the two-state solution and reject negotiations

Findings

In June 2013, 62 percent of Israelis supported the two-state solution and 33 percent opposed it. This represents only a slight increase from March 2012, when 56 percent supported a two-state solution and 40 percent opposed it.

Israeli support for negotiations rose to 65.3 percent of all Israelis (60.7 percent of Jews) two months after their resumption. Nevertheless, only 28.8 percent of Israelis (25.9 percent of Jews) thought that negotiations would lead to a two-state solution, a slight drop from December 2012, when 32 percent of Israelis thought that negotiations would lead to a two-state solution.

More broadly, in June 2013, 51 percent of Israelis thought that it was absolutely impossible to reach a final-status agreement with the Palestinians, and 68 percent said that this would be impossible to achieve in the next five years. A poll in December 2013 found similar results, with 48 percent of Israelis believing that a peace agreement will never be reached. This represents a slight change to the data from December 2012, when 67 percent thought that a final-status agreement was impossible, and 64 percent said that it was impossible in the next five years.

Score: 2

Significance of indicator

Whether or not Israelis prioritise a political settlement with the Palestinians has a direct bearing on the degree to which political parties and decision makers prioritise progress on the two-state process and whether they are willing, or not, to assemble the political coalitions and undertake the political risks that are necessary for this process to move forward or whether they will face pressure and challenges for not doing so.

Scoring guide

0 – Israelis place a political settlement with the Palestinians as a top priority, high above all other issues on the agenda.

1 – Israelis place a political settlement with the Palestinians as a top priority, but other issues on the agenda are not far behind.

2 – Israelis see a political settlement with the Palestinians as marginally more important than other issues on the agenda.

3 – Israelis see a political settlement with the Palestinians as marginally less important than other issues on the agenda.

4 – Israelis see a political settlement with the Palestinians as considerably less important than other issues on the agenda.

5 – Israelis see a political settlement with the Palestinians as a largely marginal issue    on the agenda.

Findings

In April 2013, only 10 percent of Israelis polled ranked negotiations as a top priority, therefore making this the fifth most important issue on the political agenda for Israelis, behind reducing the national deficit (12 percent), public order and violence (14 percent), the Iranian nuclear threat (16 percent), and the top item of the agenda, closing socio-economic gaps (39 percent). In the immediate aftermath of the January 2013 elections, polls recorded that 51 percent of Israelis said that they voted according to their party’s position on socio-economic issues, and only 22 percent said that their party’s position on a political settlement with the Palestinians dictated their choice.[1]

More recently, a poll in December 2013 found that 49 percent of Israelis felt that Israel would suffer increasing international isolation and sanctions should it not come to an agreement with the Palestinians, compared to 51 percent who felt that Israel was strong enough to continue the current status quo and therefore did not need to reach a deal. Moreover, according to the same data, when asked whether they would recommend accepting a package deal based on the internationally-accepted consensus parameters, 54 percent voiced their support – although this rose by 9 percent in the event of Palestinian acceptance. 

Score: 4

Significance of indicator

The two-state solution has, since the late 1990s, benefited from an ever-more explicit understanding amongst Israelis as the sole possible alternative to the ongoing conflict with the Palestinians – a kind of default option that, even if not necessarily embraced enthusiastically, was presented as eventually inevitable. The recent growth in publicly-touted alternatives – including making interim arrangements semi-permanent and annexation plans – erodes this dichotomy, leaving the two-state solution open to challenges from alternatives, reflecting Israeli dissatisfaction with the 20-year-old peace process and an increasingly assertive pro-annexation “Greater Israel” camp.

Scoring guide

0 – Any Israeli public debates on alternatives to the two-state solution are very marginal.

1 – Proponents raise alternatives to the two-state solution, but they have little public or political resonance, organised presence, or adherents in the Knesset.

2 – Proponents of alternatives to two states have a limited parliamentary and public presence, and more mainstream advocates of alternatives are focused on short-term and specific arrangements that do not preclude a two-state solution in the long term.

3 – Relatively mainstream political actors voice long-term alternatives that would preclude a two-state solution; such ideas resonate with a broader public.

4 – A combination of individuals from among influential political actors, factions, government office holders, and parliamentarians advocates the practicalities of non-partition alternatives to the two-state solution. Public support for alternatives show signs of growing.

5 – The Israeli public broadly considers non-partition solutions as viable long-term alternatives to the two-state solution; political and public campaigns advocating these solutions gain traction among Israelis and the Knesset; depending on the coalition, the government is split between alternatives.

Findings

Notable figures who have spoken out in favour of alternative solutions include Minister of Industry, Trade, and Labour Naftali Bennett, who proposed that Israel should annex Area C; former Defense Minister Moshe Arens, who proposed annexing the entire West Bank, and, over time, granting its residents limited Israeli citizenship; and a number of prominent Likud members of the Knesset, who have continued voicing support for the annexation of the West Bank in various configurations – positions that were taboo just a few years ago. Despite these statements, no politician has launched an organised political or parliamentary campaign in 2013 to proactively implement these plans.

Score: 3

Significance of indicator

The composition of Israel’s elected government determines its policy on the conflict, from the conduct of negotiations to shaping the geopolitical landscape in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Scoring guide

0 – The governing coalition pursues a clear commitment to a two-state solution, enshrined in coalition agreements and pursued in practical policies.

1 – There is a clear majority for two states within the cabinet and governing coalition, though not unanimity. Governing guidelines allude to two states and policies are consistent with this approach.

2 –There is a clear prime ministerial commitment to two states, backed up by actions, and a slim but committed majority for two states within the governing coalition, cabinet, and parliament.

3 – The governing coalition and cabinet are split on two states, with no clear majority either way, and policies reflect this.

4 – A majority of the cabinet and coalition are opposed to a two-state outcome, either declaratively or in practice, and policies on the ground reflect this. Elements of the coalition support alternatives to two states but no consensus alternative policy exists.

5 – The governing coalition is clearly opposed to two states and begins to pursue alternative options in its statements and/or in practice.

Findings

The current government is comprised of the following parties, in descending order of seniority: Likud, Yisrael Beiteinu, Yesh Atid, Bayit Yehudi (Jewish Home), and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnua party. Less than one-third of the ministers in the current cabinet are on record supporting a two-state solution, while the most prominent among them support it with reservations that detract significantly from the accepted two-state model (including, crucially, opposition to the partition of Jerusalem.)

Deputy Defence Minister Danny Danon said, and reiterated, that the government is opposed to the two-state solution and will do whatever it can to block it, and Minister of Economics and Trade Naftali Bennett said on several occasions that the two-state solution was “impossible”. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin has also come out against the two-state solution, arguing in September 2013, “if we agree to a Palestinian state, we agree to eliminate the Jewish state, and if we agree to a Jewish state, we must not agree to a Palestinian state”.

For his part, speaking in December 2009, Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman dismissed the chances of a comprehensive agreement with the Palestinians in the following ten to 20 years. More recently, in December 2013, he again voiced his doubts about the feasibility of reaching an agreement with the Palestinians during the current nine-month period.

This represents a significant change to the previous government (2009-2012), which relied on a succession of centrist parties (Labour, Ha’atzmaut, Kadima) that have been formally committed to a two-state solution and did not include politicians who were vehemently opposed to it in prominent ministerial positions. While some observers expected that Yesh Atid and Hatnua would act as strong counterbalances to nationalist parties Likud Beiteinu and Jewish Home, by July 2013 it seemed that Yesh Atid would not significantly challenge the nationalist bent of the cabinet, with Hatnua anyway being a small party (with just six seats). As yet, there have been no changes to the composition of the coalition or significant shifts in the positions of its member parties since its inauguration.

In June 2013 though, the chief whip for the current ruling coalition, Likud Knesset member Yariv Levin, became the new co-chair of the Caucus for Eretz Israel (“Greater Israel”), alongside Jewish Home Knesset member Orit Strock declaring, “we will act to strengthen our hold on all parts of Eretz Israel and will safeguard the settlement enterprise out of faith and the knowledge that exercising our rights to this land is our duty but also the best guarantee for Israel’s security”. The Caucus for Eretz Israel, although informal and devoid of legislative power, is thought to be one of the largest and most active Knesset caucuses with, according to the caucus' office, a total 37 members (over a quarter of the Knesset) – including Pnina Tamano-Shata (Yesh Atid) and Minister Uri Ariel (Jewish Home). Israel’s current deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin also previously co-chaired the Caucus for Eretz Israel.

The fact that the present government has senior ministers not only questioning the two-state solution but also openly opposing it and proposing annexationist alternatives is significant and suggests a potential structural change that could place great stress on the two-state solution. Netanyahu has formally endorsed two states but has not put this to a vote in either his Likud party or to his government nor does it form part of his government coalition guidelines.

Score: 4