Waiting for Obama

Barack Obama’s first visit to the region after being reelected to a second term is scheduled next month.

If we look back four years ago, we find that Palestinian and Arab expectations of Obama had been high, since the president was black and had a Muslim background, and showed special interest in the peace process in the region. However, Obama’s government put the Palestinian issue last on the list of priorities and went back to dealing with it on the basis of conflict resolution, giving up all attempts to reach a solution.

Let us not forget that the U.S. was against all Palestinian efforts to gain statehood recognition at the U.N. and join its international agencies. As a matter of fact, they opposed Palestinian efforts to join UNESCO and stopped U.S. aid to the Palestinian National Authority and to the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Moreover, the U.S. has used its veto power against settlement condemnation. They were also opposed to the Palestinian bid to obtain a non-member observer state status in the Security Council and voted against it.

We also cannot forget the continual American veto against any Palestinian reconciliation. The Americans insist that any incoming Palestinian government adopt the Quartet Principles, and that Hamas is out of the government, even out of its formation process. The Department of State, however, considered this to be an internal matter after the Doha Declaration, but changed their attitude later on. American envoys made it clear that the U.S. disapproved of any government if Hamas participated in its formation, even if Abu Mazen was prime minister. The U.S. also threatened to impose severe sanctions against the Palestinian Authority should the Palestinians proceed with their U.N. bid. However, they did not go as far as shutting the organization’s office in Washington or ceasing to deal with the organization or the Palestinian Authority. They did not even put pressure on other countries to refrain from voting in favor of Palestine. On the contrary, they tried to convince Congress to unblock U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority, and they contributed to convincing Israel to transfer to Palestinians their shares of custom revenues which they have stopped many times before. In fact, the U.S. believed that the Palestinians would not go any further as they hold on to negotiations. They also relied on recommendations of Israeli security chiefs who advised that the persistence of sanctions might lead to a breakdown of the Authority.

The Americans want to stop the Palestinian move toward internationalization. They are actually trying to contain the observer state status and doing their best to use it to make their efforts for negotiations resumption and conflict resolution succeed. Right now, the U.S. does not have a clear vision of how to end this conflict nor the will to impose an equal solution, and it is not likely to find one soon. This means that the conditions for new serious negotiations are not available, and the best that Obama’s government can do is attempt to make it seem like the “Peace Process”— which expired long time ago — is still alive, or at least, can be revived. In that way, any other possibilities will be cancelled. The U.S. tried to keep expectations low for Obama’s visit this time and assured that he has no new proposals. The purpose for this visit is to repair the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, to reach an agreement with Israel on how to deal with the Iranian nuclear file and the changes in the Arab world, and to study the possibility of restarting the Israeli-Palestinian talks. Halting the peace talks will eventually lead to a complete deterioration in the region, and would harm American and Israeli interests. For these reasons, there are many attempts to resume the talks. The U.S. is encouraging Israel to take some steps that could build trust with the Palestinians. These steps include the release of some prisoners, the improvement of Palestinian living conditions in the West Bank, the transfer of Palestinian revenues, easing the Gaza blockade, approval to start negotiating about settlement freezing and maybe, a partial and temporary freeze that excludes Jerusalem, large settlements and any plan that has been put into action or is in process. In return, the Palestinian Authority must give up its preconditions in order to resume talks about a complete and real settlement freeze, a commitment to a clear and binding reference to the peace process based on 1967 borders and the U.N. resolution regarding observer state status, and the release of prisoners, especially those with long sentences and those detained before the Oslo Accords.

Moreover, America, Israel and some European countries are asking Palestinians to commit to never joining any international agencies or signing international agreements, especially those related to the International Criminal Court. If Hamas agrees and facilitates the procedure, its participation in the Palestinian political system will be accepted and the American veto on the reconciliation will be lifted.

Despite what is being said about Israeli steps to build confidence and resume negotiations not really serving Palestinian demands, it remains highly doubtful that any coming Israeli government would carry out some of these steps, particularly the partial settlement freeze and the release of prisoners with long sentences.

The results of the Israeli elections did not change the Israeli attitude towards Palestinians, the peace process or the final solution issues. In fact, the Palestinian issue was not present on the election platforms of the winning parties, even those who “are” with the peace process. Even Yair Lapid neglected the Palestinian issue, and talked about negotiations being essential for Israel to prevent its isolation and to support American Israeli relations. Regarding his stand on Jerusalem, Palestinian refugees, Israeli settlements, security and the sovereignty of Palestine, his opinion is quite similar to Netanyahu’s. he actually criticized Olmert’s offer to Abu Mazen as it involved the sharing of Jerusalem and a change in the Israeli attitude towards the Palestinian refugees right to return.

The real problem lies in the fact that the Palestinian Authority is still counting on the revival of the peace process, the resumption of talks and the American role in them.

I wonder why nothing has changed even after the Palestinian’s new observer state status at the U.N. Palestinians have not gone beyond the Oslo commitments. They should, gradually at least, start acting as a real state, where elections are held for a parliament and not for a legislative council. I also wonder what happened to the committees that were supposed to follow up and take the necessary measures for dealing with the state. The only reason behind freezing these committees is probably not to affect Obama’s visit. It would have certainly been better if the Palestinians had received Obama united together, with a program that encourages joining international agencies and signing international agreements to give strength to the new Palestinian state and more power to negotiate.

But the worst of this all is the willingness of Palestinians to resume talks even if their preconditions were partly met, namely the settlement freeze and the release of detainees without the other conditions, and even if, as Abbas’ political advisor Nemer Hammad affirmed to the Israeli newspaper Maarif, these negotiations will take two or three years.

Going back to negotiations without serious adjustments in the balance of power will severely harm the political, diplomatic, legal and moral Palestinian achievement in the U.N.