Kerry Eats Falafel in Ramallah

One of Mahmoud Darwish’s poems is called “Sirhan Drinks His Coffee in the Cafeteria” and deals with the issue of the Palestinian Sirhan Sirhan and the assassinated American presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy. Kennedy was the strongest presidential candidate and the most enthusiastic supporter of Israel. At a Jewish event, which he attended after meeting some Arab diplomats in the U.S. and drinking Arabic coffee, there is a story that he announced, “I’ve just drunk a cup of bitter Arab coffee and have not had time to wash my mouth.”

Now U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has visited Ramallah and eaten Arabic food, desserts and coffee in a Palestinian restaurant — contrary to the custom of U.S. officials — while mixing with people, probably as a kind of innovation in U.S.-Palestinian relations or a kind of compensation for the stalled negotiating process.

It is possible that the parallel between former presidential candidate Kennedy and President Barack Obama and his administration, which includes Kerry, has been surpassed with regard to support for Israel, now an established aspect of U.S. politics, although this administration has tried to appear as a protector, while peace talks are being resumed, and to help bring the two sides together. The last thing it achieved was amending the Arab League’s Arab Peace Initiative to include an agreement on land swaps, which was thought to put an end to the 1967 borders as a reference for drawing the borders between “Israel” and the promised “Palestinian Homeland.”

However, the Obama administration clearly admits — by way of Kerry’s words, which profess his interest in the Palestinian-Israeli issue — that while there is strong “skepticism” about the ability to resume peace talks between the two parties; it realizes the importance of filling the gap, especially with the sensitive circumstances in the Arab region, from Egypt to Syria. Israel is also gripped with obligatory panic in the face of the events: the path Egypt is on, the future of Syria and the unstable situation in Jordan.

Therefore, the discourse must be elevated, if the situation cannot be, and efforts must be made to improve the life of Palestinians, if not for the sake of life in general then for the sake of daily life — for example, transportation — and coexistence. This symbolic gesture, which Kerry made toward the Palestinian National Authority in the streets of Ramallah, the financial capital, can only point to the amount of hope the U.S. has at this stage.

Does this sequel to the visit of the America’s chief diplomat to the area point to America’s intention to abandon the region and the Middle East?

Of course not. This region, for no reason, remains at the heart of Washington’s strategic concerns. True, its entanglement in the issues has reduced or changed the management style: from individual direction and competition in the era of Bush Jr. and the neoconservatives to “direction from an ally,” as it were, and cooperative management in the Obama era.

Yet it is hard to believe that the U.S. would leave its areas of influence to someone else for free, while it still has not grown attached to the strategic inclination toward isolation from international issues.

However, this U.S. policy is in opposition to the widespread criticism and deep agitation about its collusion in the events in Syria. It is leaving the parties to weaken and wear each other out, to eventually allow undesirable factions like Jabhat al-Nusra and other radical Islamist groups or jihadists like it to come to power or keep the country divided — the most realistic but least likely solution.

It cannot be concealed that the final solutions to the Arab Palestinian struggle and to this Palestinian issue, if they materialize, have been delayed. This delay began before the deep changes in the Arab world, after the gulf widened between the demands of the Israelis and Palestinians, with the condition of the “Jewishness” of the country, questions about the final solution for refugees or the “right of return,” Jerusalem and borders, and more, such as the future of settlers and water. With Israel’s tendency to the right — the extreme right — confirmed and continued, a loss of confidence in peaceful solutions ensued; the voices calling for temporary solutions increased and rejected the Palestinian homeland with 1967 borders or any clear borders.

One of the justifications for this point of view was a lack of confidence in the Palestinian leadership, headed by Abu Mazen, especially after the failure to regain the Gaza Strip and end the rule of Hamas there.

This difficult Arab “childbirth” came along to increase the fears of Israeli politicians and feed their weariness and apprehensions about the ability of current Arab regimes to grow tired of a historic peace with Israel. Israel is facing real internal threats, in which it could get lost in the coming days. It could be weakened by their influence, and they could increase as the people get involved.

If only Israel had not gotten tired of the peace treaty with Egypt and stayed “cool” until after the October War and gone back on the occupation of the Sinai Peninsula before pressure mounted, and without the condition that it [the Sinai] have less Egyptian leadership. A peace like that, with the largest Arab country, is so important to this period of the history of the struggle, and the chance of comprehensive solutions remains more of an aspiration. And at this stage, Kerry doubts even the resumption of negotiations!