Palestine, Obama, and the Absence of the Necessary Breakthrough

It’s no longer acceptable that the Obama administration’s position towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains without a clear answer to the Arabs; it’s no longer enough merely to ruminate on the initiative adopted by Arab summits since 2002, while Israel, in its most enthusiastic description of the initiative, described it as merely “one solution” to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and not the only formula for any solution, as intended by successive Arab summits.

President Obama’s words on this issue during his speech last Thursday in Florida involved real injustice and showed absolute bias when he described Israel as “one of our strongest allies,” and said that the Palestinians should stop the violence and recognize Israel. Then, in order to mitigate the impact of these slanted remarks, Obama offered that “Israel has to acknowledge [the] legitimate grievances and interests of the Palestinians,” and that both Israel and Palestine “have legitimate aspirations.”

The dilemma that impedes Obama is the inability to push both parties to return to the “negotiations” table; one of the focal points of U.S. policy is that, as President Obama says, “Israel is one of our strongest allies … It is critical for us and I will never waver from ensuring Israel’s security.” In other words, the launching pad for U.S. policy is the strategic relationship with Israel, while the Palestinian “situation” requires America’s attention, “because it is not good for our security and it is not good for Israel’s security if you’ve got millions of individuals who feel hopeless.”

This utilization of an unbalanced, inaccurate, and unfair equation involves severe injustice, especially considering that Israel has to make “concessions” and Palestinians have to seize them, to relieve the congestion and tension without doing justice and right. So, we can confirm that by covering his bias in a humanitarian wrap, the Obama administration appears to substitute the declaration that they understand “Palestinians’ grievances” for the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination.

The “understanding” shown by President Obama to the Palestinians’ “complaints” seems to be becoming an alternative to the application of international resolutions and the dictates of international law in the realization of Palestinians’ rights to liberate Palestinian land from Israeli occupation, and their rights to force—yes, force—a complete withdrawal from and dismantling of the settlements instead of freezing them, because the provisional settlement by Israel in Palestinian territories is viewed by the U.S. as an expression of Israel’s claim of title instead of being considered as an occupying power in this land. Therefore, it’s extremely improbable that President Obama and his Special Envoy, Senator Mitchell, will be able to push the Israeli and Palestinian sides to return to the “negotiations” table as long as the equation is ruled by intentional ambiguity in the legal basis. This ambiguity was displayed by Netanyahu when he stated that he was ready “to make painful concessions,” while President Obama replied that the concessions are for what Israel “owns” and not what it “occupies.”

Therefore, the lack of integrity in the existing equation is preventing any return to “negotiations,” even though U.S. President Obama stated in his speech in Florida that Mahmoud Abbas sincerely wants peace, but he has to deal with Hamas “refusing” to recognize Israel’s right to exist. More importantly, Israel, since its establishment in 1948 and especially since 1967, does not recognize the absolute right of Palestinians to their independent state on their rightful land.

It is true that expectations for Obama in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict seem greater than his abilities. These expectations were based on his wealth of legal expertise that would expose the shaky legal basis bequeathed by previous administrations, which failed to find a formula “based on the two-state solution,” deliberately ignoring the need to correct this legal deficiency and repeating the empty phrase “two-state solution,” as if insulting the intelligence of the Arabs as a whole.

Also, a failure to insist that there would be “no negotiation” unless it was based on fair groundwork recognizing Israel as an occupying power and without legal ambiguity or confusion, have contributed to the exhaustion of the Palestinian Authority and made the Authority unable to resolve its position, which in turn has contributed to the deepening division in Palestinian national unity. This provided fertile grounds for division instead of unity to confront and resist the non-stop Israeli settlement expansion in Palestinian homeland territories.

Obama complained to Time Magazine that neither party has initiated the gestures required to move forward, continuing, “if [the U.S] had anticipated some of these political problems on both sides earlier, we might not have raised expectations as high.”

It’s strange that this distinguished president, this renowned legal scientist, this distinguished expert who is historically committed to human rights and an activist in the culture of liberation, surprisingly did not seek to understand the root causes of the previous administrations’ failures. After the Oslo agreement, road maps, Annapolis agreement, and finally the trips of his Special Envoy, Mitchell, all failed, it makes little sense for Obama to come now and say that the parties have not made enough “gestures” in the sense of enough concessions.

What does Obama want from the Palestinians to give up? What are the illegal gains they have achieved by aggression and that he requires them to “concede”? Why is the fact that Israel has built on the occupied territories still absent? What is the meaning of Obama’s demand to only freeze the settlements? And what did his administration do when Netanyahu continued Judaizing Jerusalem and continued increasing population in the existing settlements?

Obama says that Netanyahu’s government, including the right-leaning parties, is in favor of the settlement, and strongly refuses to leave the West Bank for the Palestinian state! Once again Obama is very strange, as if he doesn’t really understand that Netanyahu’s government, which includes the Likud party led by Netanyahu, is the main “partner for peace,” and which claims that settlement is Israel’s right as the owner of the land and not an occupant.

We all hold admiration and affection for President Obama, and admiration for his ability to absorb the complexities, assume responsibilities, and effectively managing the challenges suffered by the United States last year.

This admiration as seen following his moving speech in front of the U.S. Congress on Wednesday, made his statement about the Palestinian issue in the next day in Florida baffling, as his precision in political analysis—so clear in his State of the Union—seemed to elude him fully when dealing with the Palestine issue! To what extent can Israel deter any possibility of the United States acting with integrity toward Palestine? Or is the required objectivity almost impossible?

Obama’s remarks in Florida are available here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-and-vice-president-town-hall-meeting-tampa-florida.

The Time Magazine interview is available here: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1955072-6,00.html.