The Peace Process: A New American Stumble
Published in Al-Quds
(Palestine) on 4 November 2009
by Mustafa Zain (link to original)
They say that Barack Obama, the United States president who promised domestic change and improvement in the U.S. image abroad, began to discover the difficulty of achieving his promises and that overturning the empire’s established traditions is more difficult than expected, even when the changes are in response to public desire.
Once Obama took office, he clashed with a group associated spiritually and financially with oil companies, weapons and drugs. He could not pass his popular health program; he did not dare to stop the war in Afghanistan and the decision to withdraw from Iraq was for the benefit of the war in Kabul.
His test in the Middle East was the hardest. Obama promised the Palestinians a state within two years. He stressed the importance of freezing settlements in the West bank, seeing as the settlements are the main obstacle towards peace. Everyone thought he was making good progress and that this would lead to a solution. Looking more closely, one can see that Obama’s rhetorical eloquence covered up what was really happening within his administration. He appointed the Israeli Rham Emanuel as his White House chief of staff, assigned Dennis Ross as an advisor and appointed George Mitchell to his post [as the American special envoy to the Middle East] based on his experience in bringing peace to Ireland; however, this experience has not translated to the Middle East.
The president returned to White House traditions. Convinced by Netanyahu's point of view, Obama, in the first clash between [the two leaders], dropped the requirement of a settlement freeze as a starting point for negotiations. It was a resounding victory for Netanyahu and his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. This allowed Netanyahu to pressure the Palestinians into giving up their rights before the start of negotiations.
Victorious Netanyahu was not embarrassed to declare his victory when addressing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He mentioned that the construction of 3,000 housing units will continue and settlement in Jerusalem is not subject to any compromise. Clinton agreed and even elevated his position by saying that, historically, he is right. Of course, she is talking about the biblical promise, not the people who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years. To her, the promise is based only on her view on history and the current inhabitants are of no matter.
Clinton went from Jerusalem to Morocco, where the Arab foreign ministers are meeting. She is trying to rally support against the Palestinians (there are precedents to this type of action) hoping they will persuade President Mahmoud Abbas’s team to accept Netanyahu’s plans and her historical viewpoint. She will try to convince them that the requirement to stop the settlements is not necessary as long as the negotiations will eventually address the final borders, Jerusalem, holy places and refugees. She will also spin her folding to the demands of Netanyahu’s administration as a victory for peace since she was able to convince him to come to the negotiation table.
We would like Clinton to hear what Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said to Washington when refusing the call to open up diplomatic relations with Israel, thus encouraging the resumption of peace negotiations: “We have nothing to propose but normalization, and if we do that before restoring the occupied Arab territories, we will lose the only card in our hands.” Perhaps more: If Arabs and Palestinians responded to Netanyahu's demands, then the inevitable result would be further Palestinian fragmentation and an alienation between the authorities and their people. One does not need much more than that to cause a civil war.
Clinton made a vague promise. How can we believe her promises and the promises of her president?
Once Obama took office, he clashed with a group associated spiritually and financially with oil companies, weapons and drugs. He could not pass his popular health program; he did not dare to stop the war in Afghanistan and the decision to withdraw from Iraq was for the benefit of the war in Kabul.
His test in the Middle East was the hardest. Obama promised the Palestinians a state within two years. He stressed the importance of freezing settlements in the West bank, seeing as the settlements are the main obstacle towards peace. Everyone thought he was making good progress and that this would lead to a solution. Looking more closely, one can see that Obama’s rhetorical eloquence covered up what was really happening within his administration. He appointed the Israeli Rham Emanuel as his White House chief of staff, assigned Dennis Ross as an advisor and appointed George Mitchell to his post [as the American special envoy to the Middle East] based on his experience in bringing peace to Ireland; however, this experience has not translated to the Middle East.
The president returned to White House traditions. Convinced by Netanyahu's point of view, Obama, in the first clash between [the two leaders], dropped the requirement of a settlement freeze as a starting point for negotiations. It was a resounding victory for Netanyahu and his foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman. This allowed Netanyahu to pressure the Palestinians into giving up their rights before the start of negotiations.
Victorious Netanyahu was not embarrassed to declare his victory when addressing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He mentioned that the construction of 3,000 housing units will continue and settlement in Jerusalem is not subject to any compromise. Clinton agreed and even elevated his position by saying that, historically, he is right. Of course, she is talking about the biblical promise, not the people who have lived in Jerusalem for hundreds of years. To her, the promise is based only on her view on history and the current inhabitants are of no matter.
Clinton went from Jerusalem to Morocco, where the Arab foreign ministers are meeting. She is trying to rally support against the Palestinians (there are precedents to this type of action) hoping they will persuade President Mahmoud Abbas’s team to accept Netanyahu’s plans and her historical viewpoint. She will try to convince them that the requirement to stop the settlements is not necessary as long as the negotiations will eventually address the final borders, Jerusalem, holy places and refugees. She will also spin her folding to the demands of Netanyahu’s administration as a victory for peace since she was able to convince him to come to the negotiation table.
We would like Clinton to hear what Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal said to Washington when refusing the call to open up diplomatic relations with Israel, thus encouraging the resumption of peace negotiations: “We have nothing to propose but normalization, and if we do that before restoring the occupied Arab territories, we will lose the only card in our hands.” Perhaps more: If Arabs and Palestinians responded to Netanyahu's demands, then the inevitable result would be further Palestinian fragmentation and an alienation between the authorities and their people. One does not need much more than that to cause a civil war.
Clinton made a vague promise. How can we believe her promises and the promises of her president?
Previous article![]( "Fort Hood Test")
