By electing the right wing political cabal led by Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli voters once again rejected any prospect whatsoever of a peaceful settlement of the Palestinian question. Netanyahu, who had in 2009 seemingly accepted the idea of a two-state solution, formally rejected it when electioneering, proclaiming emphatically that there would be no Palestinian state under his watch. Not only that, he even tried to rouse his Jewish electorate by warning that the country’s Arab voters, constituting about 20 percent of the population, were voting in “droves” to unseat his government. To quote Netanyahu, “The right wing government [of Netanyahu] is in danger. Arab voters are coming out in droves to the ballot booths.” He knew that the racist card, along with the rejection of a Palestinian state, would produce the desired result and it did. He will now be free to pursue an even more oppressive agenda for the country’s Arab citizens and the occupied Palestinian territory. However, under international pressure, particularly from the Obama administration, Netanyahu has sought to backtrack on his rejection of the two-state solution. However it is worded, Israel’s underlying policy is aimed at preventing the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state alongside Israel on the pre-1967 borders, before Israel annexed/occupied Palestine after the June 1967 war. For instance, most Israeli citizens, leaving aside its Arab population, favour the continuation of its settlement policy of encircling Palestinian territory crisscrossed with checkpoints to control the movements of Palestinian people. How do you create a sovereign or even semi-sovereign Palestinian state when its territory is parcelled out among Jews supported by state forces to keep the Palestinians out, as well as humiliating them all the time through all sorts of identity checks? It is difficult to believe that an Israeli state practicing such apartheid, whether led by Netanyahu or any other Israeli political formation, will accept a sovereign Palestinian state unless it is subjected to the kind of international sanctions that apartheid-ruled South Africa faced in its dying days. And there is no sign of that as yet. So, why are the Obama administration and some of its European allies suddenly taken aback by Netanyahu’s comments about the rejection of the two-state solution and his Arab baiting? After all, it has been apparent all along that Israel would do everything possible to thwart the emergence of a sovereign Palestinian state. And the discrimination of Israel’s Arab citizens is an open secret. The main reason is that the pretence and symbolism of a two-state formula was useful as a goal, however distant and improbable. It avoided forcing the issue as the Palestinian Authority sought to seek membership of the United Nations and its sister organisations. The US was able to justify its vetoing of the UN Security Council resolutions pertaining to Palestine because, they contended, there was a peaceful path through negotiations as Israel was “committed” to a two-state solution. It served Israel well without having to actually deliver the two-state outcome. At the same time, the Palestinian Authority (PA) continued to police its own people on behalf of the Israeli state. And for that, Israel collected revenue for the PA, which paid for its police and general administration though the revenue was withheld recently. It seemed a neat arrangement suiting Israel. But they still were not happy because the PA at times wanted the real thing, like a real state. Now that Netanyahu has rejected the two-state solution — never mind his retraction after the election and an apology of sorts to Israel’s Arab citizens — it is difficult to maintain the pretence of a peacefully negotiated two-state solution. First, because all the diplomatic efforts put in by the Obama administration to further the peace process were frustrated because Israel was not interested in a positive outcome. The diplomatic initiative of the US secretary of state, John Kerry, so incensed the Israeli defence minister, Moshe Ya’alon, that he described him as “messianic and obsessive…[and wished] he [Kerry] should win his Nobel prize [for peace efforts] and leave us in peace”. This is clearly indicative of the Israeli attitude towards a peaceful solution. Indeed, Israel’s president, Reuven (Ruvi) Rivlin, is most forthright against the idea of a Palestinian state. In his profile of President Rivlin, David Remnick of The New Yorker wrote that the president “is ardently opposed to the establishment of a Palestinian state”. According to Remnick, “He is instead a proponent of Greater Israel, one Jewish state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. He professes to be mystified that anyone should object to the continued construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank.” Remnick quotes Rivlin: “It cannot be ‘occupied territory’ if the land is your own.” It is as simple as that. Therefore, when Netanyahu ruled out a Palestinian state under his watch, he was saying the obvious as spelt out even more clearly by the country’s president. It is not that Israel has been lacking in making its intentions known but that the US and its western allies have not been keen to face the reality because that required doing something tangible to translate into action their support for a sovereign Palestinian state. Will it happen now? Though the Obama administration is miffed with Netanyahu and there have been strong statements both by the president and some of his senior advisors about reassessing US options after the Israeli leader’s rejection of a two-state solution and his racist comments about Israel’s Arab citizens, it would be very surprising if the US translates all this into a definite policy to push statehood for Palestine. Still, the strongest statement has come from the White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, before a liberal Jewish US group. He reportedly said that a separate Palestinian state was the best guarantee of Israel’s long-term security because “an occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state”. He added, “In the end, we know what a peace agreement should look like. The borders of Israel and an independent Palestine should be based on the [June 4] 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” However, even as the Obama administration has made some bold statements critical of Netanyahu and his government, it has reiterated its commitment to Israel’s security. That makes US statements largely irrelevant. For instance, Israel might simply wait out Obama’s presidency as he enters the lame duck stage of his administration. With the Congress unlikely to support any change, Israel can do what it wants. But, internationally, and to some extent within the US, Israel’s continued intransigence and arrogance is slowly creating exasperation that might create a helpful environment for the eventual creation of a sovereign Palestinian state. But it is still early days for the long-suffering Palestinian people to count their chickens before they are hatched. The writer is a senior journalist and academic based in Sydney, Australia. He can be reached at sushilpseth@yahoo.co.au