Israel-Palestine Analysis: "Security" Moves to the Front in Direct Talks (Yenidunya)

On 1 September, following the murder of four Israelis ahead of the Israel-Palestine direct talks, we said:

The most significant, if cynical, question is: which side can get the most benefit from this tragedy during direct talks? Will this attack boost Israel through attention to its security concerns? Will it make Ramallah a more valuable partner for peace, given the shadow of Hamas and other opposition groups, especially at a time when polls show that more than half of Palestinians in the West Bank do not believe that there will be a peace agreement in Washington?

Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon has offered an answer, underlining the magical word "security" through reference to an "existential threat". He wrote on his Facebook page:

The vicious and cold-blooded attack on four Israeli citizens last night underscores the importance of a security dialogue like the one I just had with our counterparts from Canada and other friends and allies. After the attacks on Israel in recent weeks, the Iranian regime has proven once again the threat that it poses to global peace and security through its proxies like Hamas.

Israel-Palestine Transcript: George Mitchell on the Direct Talks (3 September)
Israel-Palestine Video & Transcript: Clinton-Abbas-Netanyahu Statements and Meeting (3 September)

A day later, Ayalon saw the reward from his warning through pressure on the Palestinian Authority. He said:

While negotiations are restarting in the US, ministers in Abbas' government are continuing with their incitement and encouraging acts of terrorism by visiting the and praising families of terrorists and murderers. These types of visits encourage terrorism, as we saw recently with the murder of four Israelis. The Palestinians need to make a decision, they cannot talk peace and at the same time encourage terrorism.

At the ceremony at the White House marking the official launch of direct Mideast peace talks at the White House, the most prominent word was "peace" (39 times), but it was followed by "security" (24).

Unsurprisingly, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made great use of the term. For him, two points are key: the root of the conflict with Palestinians  has not changed, but there are other "genuine security needs of Israel that have changed", due to Iran and its "proxies". Let's go back to his 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University: "The simple truth is that the root of the conflict has been and remains the refusal to recognize the right of the Jewish People to its own state in its historical homeland." Netanyahu reiterated this position yesterday: "We expect you to be prepared to recognize Israel as the nation-state of the Jewish people."

Netanyahu situated this tragedy of this week's killings of Israeli settlement as a contribution to the definition of peace and security in his Washington statement:

The last two days have been difficult. They were exceedingly difficult for my people and for me. Blood has been shed, the blood of innocents: four innocent Israelis gunned down brutally, two people wounded, seven new orphans. President Abbas, you condemned this killing. That’s important. No less important is to find the killers, and equally to make sure that we can stop other killers. They seek to kill our people, kill our state, kill our peace. And so achieving security is a must. Security is the foundation of peace. Without it, peace will unravel. With it, peace can be stable and enduring.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also used the deadly event in the context of "suspicion and skepticism".  "Peace" was not a concrete and immediate action but a series of actions, starting with the willingness to come to Washington. She said:

We understand the suspicion and skepticism that so many feel, born out of years of conflict and frustrated hopes. The tragic act of terror on Tuesday and the terrorist shooting yesterday are yet additional reminders of the human costs of this conflict. But by being here today, you each have taken an important step toward freeing your peoples from the shackles of a history we cannot change, and moving toward a future of peace and dignity that only you can create.

But here is the twist: Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas also adopted the "security" framework. Indeed he offered it even more often than Netanyahu, and he also used the attack on the four Israelis for essential context:

Also, with respect to security, you do know, ladies and gentlemen, that we have security apparatuses that are still being built, that are still young, but that are doing everything that is expected from them. Yesterday, we condemned the operations that were carried. We did not only condemn them, but we also followed on the perpetrators and we were able to find the car that was used and to arrest those who sold and bought the car. And we will continue all our effort to take security measures in order to find the perpetrators. We consider that security is of essence, is vital for both of us, and we cannot allow for anyone to do anything that would undermine your security and our security. And we therefore do not only condemn, but we keep on working seriously. Security is fundamental and very sensitive.