Palestine: Obama Attempts a Last Chance Solution

With five days to go until the arrival of Barack Obama in New York for the U.N.’s annual meeting, which the Palestinians want to use to seize a unilateral recognition of their state at the General Assembly or the Security Council, the U.S. administration is stepping up its efforts behind the scenes to prevent a scenario that would become a major diplomatic setback. Dennis Ross and David Hale, Obama’s emissaries, once again traveled to the Middle East on Wednesday to meet Israeli leaders. They also wanted to attempt to obtain concessions from them that could convince the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table and abandon their plan. It was anticipated that they would make a new journey to the West Bank on Thursday. But isn’t it too late?

“In diplomacy, it is never too late. The eleventh hour is precisely the moment when, faced with an imminent decision where the cost would be huge, the parties may decide to agree,”* Aaron Miller, a specialist in the field at the Woodrow Wilson Center, said to Le Figaro. However, he considers this to be a very low probability. “The fact that the U.S. Congress is threatening to cut $500 million in aid that it provides annually to the Palestinian Authority is an argument that should make the Palestinians think because it will hurt their economy tremendously,”* he said. But given the publicity that Mahmoud Abbas has given to his intention, it would need to “force the Israelis to do something really significant for him to change his opinion,”* Miller reckons. Something like an “Israeli settlement freeze” and “an agreement in principle on the recognition of the 1967 borders with a mutual exchange of territories.”

For months, President Obama has said that the Palestinian approach to the U.N. would be a “distraction” that “would not solve the problem.” At the risk of isolating himself and squandering the popularity that he gained by supporting the Arab Spring, he made it clear that the U.S. would veto this request if it is brought to the U.N. Security Council. Aaron Miller said that any other policy is impossible. “The U.S. has always denied that the U.N. is the place where the permanent status of a state is decided,”* he said. Especially when it comes to the future of their strategic partner, Israel. Obama has no desire to alienate the Jewish community in the run up to the presidential elections. The warning sent on Tuesday by voters in the ninth district of New York, where a Republican was elected in a Democratic stronghold with 54 percent of the vote, was without doubt received loud and clear. “It is clear that large segments of the Jewish voters in New York are not happy with Obama’s policies, which they consider to be anti-Israel, even if it’s not true,”* said Aaron Miller.

No Good Option

Miller notes that in order for the Israeli-Palestinian case to progress, as was the case under Carter or Clinton, “We must be prepared to battle with the Israelis.”* “Obama has tried, and would do it again if he thought that the battle could produce an agreement. But he is frustrated by the case and does not want to risk a failure that would allow his opponents to accuse him of weakness.”*

Caught between these domestic concerns and the risk of alienating the Arab world, the administration therefore has no good option unless there is a last minute surprise. In an article published on Tuesday by The New York Times, Saudi Ambassador to the U.S. Prince Turki al-Faisal warned that if the U.S. veto the proposal, it will “lose” its Saudi ally, the U.S.’ crucial partner in the Middle East. Turkey, another ally that is becoming increasingly stubborn, also increased the pressure by stating that recognizing the Palestinian demand was “not a choice but an obligation.” On Wednesday, the Republican representative Kay Granger compared the perspective of the Palestinian declaration to a “tumbling derailed train.”*

*Translator’s Note: This quote, although accurately translated, could not be verified.alestinians want to use to seize a unilateral recognition of their state at the General Assembly or the Security Council the U.S. administration is stepping up its efforts behind the scenes to prevent a scenario that would become a major diplomatic setback. On Wednesday, Dennis Ross and David Hale, Obama’s emissaries, once again traveled to the Middle East to meet Israeli leaders. They also wanted to attempt to obtain concessions from them that could convince the Palestinians to return to the negotiating table and abandon their plan. It was anticipated that they would make a new journey to the West Bank on Thursday. But isn’t it too late?

“In diplomacy, it is never too late. The eleventh hour is precisely the moment when, faced with an imminent decision where the cost would be huge, the parties may decide to agree,” Aaron Miller, a specialist in the field at the Woodrow Wilson Center, said to Le Figaro. However, he considers this to be a very low probability. “The fact that U.S. Congress is threatening to cut the 500 million dollars in aid that it pays annually to the Palestinian Authority is an argument that should make the Palestinians think because it will hurt their economy tremendously,” he said. But given the publicity that Mahmoud Abbas has given to his intention, it would need to “force the Israelis to do something really significant for him to change his opinion,” Miller reckons. Something like an “Israeli settlement freeze” and “agreement in principle on the recognition of the 1967 borders with a mutual exchange of territories.”

For months, President Obama has said that the Palestinian’s approach to the U.N. would be a “distraction” that “would not solve the problem.” At the risk of isolating himself and squandering the popularity that he gained by supporting the Arab Spring, he made it clear that the U.S. would veto this request if it is brought to the U.N. Security Council. Aaron Miller said that any other policy is impossible. “The U.S. has always denied that the U.N. is the place where the permanent status of a state is decided,” he said. Especially when it comes to the future of their strategic partner, Israel. Obama has no desire to alienate the Jewish communities in the run up to the presidential elections. The warning sent on Tuesday by voters in the ninth district of New York, where a Republican was elected in a Democratic stronghold with 54 percent of the vote, was without doubt received loud and clear. “It is clear that large segments of the Jewish voters in New York are not happy with Obama’s policies, which they consider to be anti-Israel, even if it’s not true,” said Aaron Miller.

No Good Option

Miller notes that, in order for the Israeli-Palestinian case to progress, as was the case under Carter or Clinton, “we must be prepared to battle with the Israelis.” “Obama has tried, and would do it again if he thought that the battle could produce an agreement. But he is frustrated by the case and does not want to risk a failure that would allow his opponents to accuse him of weakness.”

Caught between these domestic concerns and the risk of alienating the Arab world, the administration therefore has no good option unless there is a last minute surprise. In an article published on Tuesday by the New York Times, Prince Turki al-Faisal warned that if the U.S. veto, it will “lose” its Saudi ally, the U.S.’s crucial partner in the Middle East. Turkey, another ally that is becoming increasingly stubborn, also increased the pressure by stating that recognizing the Palestinian demand was “not a choice but an obligation.” On Wednesday, the Republican representative Kay Granger compared the perspective of the Palestinian declaration to a “tumbling derailed train.”