Restoring U.S.–Palestine Relations
In light of the recent return to direct negotiations between Palestine and Israel, Palestinians ought to seek out the causes that have led to this deterioration of relations and the means to improve the situation.
At this point in time, is there any another way besides political action? This symbolizes a culmination of half a century of struggle, wherein the Palestinians must confront the Israeli occupier, armed with weapons and military operations both within and beyond the territories.
One of the reasons for the deterioration of the Palestinian situation is the volatility of the entire region.
A new Middle East is being established, especially in light of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, which has disturbed the balance of the region—much to the benefit of Iran. Like it or not, Iran is the one and only country that has gained from the U.S. war in Iraq.
Not only did the occupation of Iraq lead to regional imbalances, it also triggered disputes in the Arab world far from Iraq. The abhorrent sectarian conflicts have largely drawn attention away from the Palestinian cause.
There are other factors that have played a role in complicating the situation: the war in Afghanistan, religious extremism in Pakistan and the notion of a war on terrorism manipulated by the U.S. to wage a military campaign against Iraq.
This does not mean that Palestinians should fall into the trap of despair. Their cause is prominent on the political map of the Middle East and has the support of the international community. He who scrutinizes the development of the Palestinian cause in recent years will notice a crucial point.
It is the setback suffered by both the Palestinian National Authority and the U.S. administration, beginning with the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit and followed by the militarization of the uprising, which was preceded by the lack of Palestinian support from former President Bill Clinton. This led to ruptured relations between Washington and Palestine.
The alienation exploited by the Israelis intensified into disaster, which put Yasser Arafat, may Allah have mercy on him, under house arrest in a so-called “boycott.” His death was caused by the stress and inhumane practices he suffered, which can only be described as terrorism.
The Palestinians are rebuilding their relationship with the United States, for they know that there is no Palestinian state without American support and nothing will stop the siege of Gaza but pressure from the U.S. Hamas knows this.
It recently admitted that it has directed two letters to President Barack Obama, addressing the Palestinian negotiator who deals with Israel through U.S. presidential envoy George Mitchell. The Palestinians know that Yasser Arafat visited the White House more than any other world leader in 2000, and nobody asked about it when he became a hostage in Ramallah from 2001 to 2004, simply because the Americans decided to boycott him.
A sign of progress in the Palestinians’ acceptance of indirect negotiations is Obama’s phone call to National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a few days ago, confirming that he strongly supports the establishment of an independent, viable Palestinian state living in peace and security with Israel.
The majority of mass media came to a halt when Obama spoke of his intent to “hold both sides accountable for actions that undermine trust during the talks.”
A press statement issued by the White House directed to Abbas was important, as it reflected a sympathetic stance toward the Palestinian issue, indicated by the wish to receive “Abu Mazen” at the White House.
It is too early to compare “Obama’s Promise” to the Palestinians with the 1917 “Balfour Declaration” to the Jews. What cannot be ignored is that the Palestinians are moving in the right direction, as the government of Dr. Salam Fayyad focuses on building infrastructure, taking no notice of senior officials in the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian National Authority, Fatah or Hamas.
Serious Palestinians know that “Obama’s Promise” could become a reality if they avoid slipping into a futile maze that will only restrict the option of an independent Palestine.
Finally, there are obvious questions that ordinary Palestinians should answer. Does he want an independent state? Do regional balances allow for more? Is there hope without U.S. consent, regardless of the amount of U.S. involvement? There is no sure bet unless the U.S. actively participates in Palestinian negotiations, limiting the Israeli rush towards occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Maybe betting on the U.S.' role is not prudent, but there is no alternative to restoring the Palestinian relationship with Washington if the state terrorism practiced by Israel is to be stopped.
At this point in time, is there any another way besides political action? This symbolizes a culmination of half a century of struggle, wherein the Palestinians must confront the Israeli occupier, armed with weapons and military operations both within and beyond the territories.
One of the reasons for the deterioration of the Palestinian situation is the volatility of the entire region.
A new Middle East is being established, especially in light of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, which has disturbed the balance of the region—much to the benefit of Iran. Like it or not, Iran is the one and only country that has gained from the U.S. war in Iraq.
Not only did the occupation of Iraq lead to regional imbalances, it also triggered disputes in the Arab world far from Iraq. The abhorrent sectarian conflicts have largely drawn attention away from the Palestinian cause.
There are other factors that have played a role in complicating the situation: the war in Afghanistan, religious extremism in Pakistan and the notion of a war on terrorism manipulated by the U.S. to wage a military campaign against Iraq.
This does not mean that Palestinians should fall into the trap of despair. Their cause is prominent on the political map of the Middle East and has the support of the international community. He who scrutinizes the development of the Palestinian cause in recent years will notice a crucial point.
It is the setback suffered by both the Palestinian National Authority and the U.S. administration, beginning with the failure of the 2000 Camp David Summit and followed by the militarization of the uprising, which was preceded by the lack of Palestinian support from former President Bill Clinton. This led to ruptured relations between Washington and Palestine.
The alienation exploited by the Israelis intensified into disaster, which put Yasser Arafat, may Allah have mercy on him, under house arrest in a so-called “boycott.” His death was caused by the stress and inhumane practices he suffered, which can only be described as terrorism.
The Palestinians are rebuilding their relationship with the United States, for they know that there is no Palestinian state without American support and nothing will stop the siege of Gaza but pressure from the U.S. Hamas knows this.
It recently admitted that it has directed two letters to President Barack Obama, addressing the Palestinian negotiator who deals with Israel through U.S. presidential envoy George Mitchell. The Palestinians know that Yasser Arafat visited the White House more than any other world leader in 2000, and nobody asked about it when he became a hostage in Ramallah from 2001 to 2004, simply because the Americans decided to boycott him.
A sign of progress in the Palestinians’ acceptance of indirect negotiations is Obama’s phone call to National Authority President Mahmoud Abbas a few days ago, confirming that he strongly supports the establishment of an independent, viable Palestinian state living in peace and security with Israel.
The majority of mass media came to a halt when Obama spoke of his intent to “hold both sides accountable for actions that undermine trust during the talks.”
A press statement issued by the White House directed to Abbas was important, as it reflected a sympathetic stance toward the Palestinian issue, indicated by the wish to receive “Abu Mazen” at the White House.
It is too early to compare “Obama’s Promise” to the Palestinians with the 1917 “Balfour Declaration” to the Jews. What cannot be ignored is that the Palestinians are moving in the right direction, as the government of Dr. Salam Fayyad focuses on building infrastructure, taking no notice of senior officials in the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Palestinian National Authority, Fatah or Hamas.
Serious Palestinians know that “Obama’s Promise” could become a reality if they avoid slipping into a futile maze that will only restrict the option of an independent Palestine.
Finally, there are obvious questions that ordinary Palestinians should answer. Does he want an independent state? Do regional balances allow for more? Is there hope without U.S. consent, regardless of the amount of U.S. involvement? There is no sure bet unless the U.S. actively participates in Palestinian negotiations, limiting the Israeli rush towards occupation of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.
Maybe betting on the U.S.' role is not prudent, but there is no alternative to restoring the Palestinian relationship with Washington if the state terrorism practiced by Israel is to be stopped.