For a fraction of a second he cast down his eyes, almost as if he was afraid to face the public. But he had said it loud and clear: "A Palestinian state". Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his "inauguration speech" last Sunday, for the first time evoked the possibility of a Palestinian state.
Granted, Netanyahu's Palestinian state would not have an army nor control over its airspace nor a capital in Jerusalem. It would have no say over the growing community of Jewish settlers in the West Bank and there would be no right of return for the Palestinians who left Israel in 1948. But still, he said it: "A Palestinian state."
President Obama and the European Union promptly rewarded Netanyahu with a standing ovation. EU 'foreign minister' Javier Solana called it an important step in the peace process, "because the only possible solution is a two-state solution".
But for Netanyahu it was the easiest of concessions. In Israel, everybody knows that talking about a two-state solution is just that: talk. It means very little in the real world, at least not in the foreseeable future.
Avigdor Lieberman, the Israeli foreign minister, also seemed forthcoming on the Palestinian issue during talks with his European colleagues in Luxembourg early this week. Lieberman said Israel was prepared to begin "talks without preconditions" with the Palestinians. But Lieberman, a hawk, also told the Jerusalem Post that any two-state solution can only come at the end of the entire peace process, and it is therefore not relevant to discuss it now.
Being in favour of an independent Palestinian state is a sure way for an Israeli politician to reassure the West and safeguard international trade. He doesn't have to worry much about a backlash at home, because Israelis know that they're just empty words. A pipe dream at best, and in any case not a solution in and by itself.
Meanwhile, the situation in and around Gaza is at a complete stalemate. Hamas is unable to feed its population because of the closed borders, yet it somehow still manages to smuggle enough munitions in through the tunnel system to shoot rockets at Israel on a weekly basis. And the more aggressive Hamas becomes, the tighter the borders are shut.
The desperate population of Gaza massively supports Hamas, but with Hamas in control the situation can only worsen. Hamas can only engage in war, not talk about peace. They are not in favour of a two-state solution; they want to wipe Israel off the map. And that is not negotiable.
In short, there is no point in talking about a two-state solution as long as the Hamas violence hasn't been curtailed. In order for the Israelis to address the problem of the settlers, and for the Palestinians to show that they can curb terrorism in a sustainable way, a long-lasting peace is needed. As long as that doesn't happen, talk about a two-state solution is not just unrealistic but entirely irrelevant.
While Israel is still under attack from Hamas, the EU is demanding that it should commit to a two-state solution since Brussels sees an independent Palestinian state as the only and ultimate solution for the conflict. By pushing the two-state solution, the EU is clearly sending the message that there are no other options. Javier Solana said it quite literally: "the only possible solution".
But is this still effective diplomacy? Solana's message allowed Netanyahu to make an easy score by seeming to make a concession that wasn't a concession at all. And it gives the Palestinians the idea that they will never be entirely vindicated, that the conflict will never be entirely over, until there is an independent Palestinian state.
But there are other options. A long period of peace would allow the economic ties between Palestinians and Israel to be restored. Already there are examples of successful economic cooperation on the West Bank, despite the Israeli blockades and checkpoints. Bethlehem, which is under control of the Palestinian Authority, attracts 300,000 tourists every year. They are brought to Bethlehem in Israeli buses and eased through the Israeli checkpoints.
Such economic development allows both sides to see the benefits of peace, and to work towards maintaining such a peace. Better economic conditions on the West Bank could make Palestinian voters see that Hamas may not be the way forward for the Palestinian people, that more moderate politicians have a better chance of improving living conditions in the Gaza Strip.
If Israel, without jeopardising its own security, is able to stimulate the Palestinian economy, and by doing so improve the quality of life in the Gaza Strip, it will be an important step towards a lasting peace. Such a step will have a much bigger impact than empty words about an independent Palestinian state.
Instead of demanding that Netanyahu and Lieberman come out in favour of a two-state solution, the EU should be looking for real solutions to real problems: the settlements, the Israeli blockades, and last but not least, the continuing Hamas violence. Now that would really help the peace process forward.
