Hillary Clinton’s shameless praise of Israel’s settlement policies
in the occupied Palestinian territories deserves more than Arab and
Palestinian outrage. The US Secretary of State had brushed aside a
fundamental principle in the decades-old quest to reach a just
political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians; the
illegality of Jewish settlements. By stating that a settlement freeze
is not a precondition for restarting peace talks and that the issue has
always been subject to negotiations, she had single-handedly shifted
the course, and outcome, of future talks.
It was a major
departure from decades of confirmed US position on the legality of
Jewish settlement activities in the occupied territories. Whether it
was a gaffe or a bona fide change in official US policy, Clinton
attempted to soften the blow from her Jerusalem statements a day later
when she arrived in Marrakesh to meet a number of Arab foreign
ministers. She said that the administration’s position had not changed
and that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued
Israeli settlements.”
But in reality there is a basic change in
Washington’s position. By insisting that the resumption of peace
negotiations should be unconditional, which is exactly what Israeli
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is calling for, Clinton is changing
the framework of these talks. Instead of sticking to President Barack
Obama’s earlier pledges that settlement construction must stop, she now
believes Israel’s ambiguous and nonbinding offer to put a freeze on new
projects in the West Bank is “unprecedented.” Meanwhile, Israel will go
ahead with plans to build more than 3,000 new units in various
settlements in the West Bank, excluding ongoing expansion in East
Jerusalem.
The code word here is preconditions. Clinton agrees
with Netanyahu’s position; that resumption of peace talks should not be
linked to Palestinian caveats; i.e. preconditions, such as building of
settlements, uprooting Palestinians from East Jerusalem and threatening
the status of Muslim holy places in Al-Haram Al-Sharif.
From
political and legal viewpoints the Palestinian stand makes perfect
sense. After almost two decades of prolonged and tedious peace
negotiations the Palestinians are eager to conclude these talks in a
way that achieves the minimum of national aspirations: Full Israeli
withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza, repatriation of Palestinian
refugees and the creation of an independent and sovereign state with
East Jerusalem as its capital.
With over 300,000 Jewish settlers
living permanently in the West Bank and over 190,000 now residing in
East Jerusalem, the Palestinian objective is in jeopardy. The integrity
of the future Palestinian state will never be achieved unless Jewish
settlements are removed. A contiguous Palestinian state, which is what
the US administration had promised, is already in doubt as a result of
the Israeli barrier wall, tens of settlements and land expropriated for
security reasons.
For many years US officials were content to
describe the building of settlements in the occupied areas as an
obstacle to peace. And now in Clinton’s view it is an issue that
negotiators will have to resolve among themselves. This is an insult to
every Palestinian. To presume that both parties will find a
satisfactory solution to this “obstacle” within the framework of future
negotiations is simply stupid.
The reality is that Washington
has opted to turn its back to Obama’s commitments. The White House is
in no mood for a showdown with Israel over settlements and other
issues. The US Department of State has decided to shift pressure from
Israel to the Palestinian National Authority. What matters for US
policymakers today is not justice for the Palestinians, but a
resumption of peace talks at any price.
It is safer to threaten
the Palestinians than confront the Israelis in a risky face-off. Obama
has abandoned his pledges to Arabs, Muslims and Palestinians. It is as
simple as that.
It is now up to Arab foreign ministers to
respond to Clinton’s slights. They have a chance to do so in Marrakesh.
They can either tell the US secretary of state that they cannot be part
in a conspiracy to further deny the Palestinians their national rights;
or they can choose to succumb to Washington’s pressure and face the
consequences.
In all, and at least for the Arabs, Obama appears
to have lost his mojo! He has failed to live up to his promises of
creating positive change in the region and bringing justice to the
Palestinians. Those who had hoped that he would stand up to Israeli
injustice have been proven wrong. The Arabs should decide that while
they cannot negotiate with the Israelis, they can at least engage the
Americans. Instead of letting Clinton dictate a new course for future
peace talks, they must force her to listen and tell her that
Washington’s current track is simply not acceptable!
Click Here to read the full article at Arab News
Posted
at
6 Nov 2009 6:35 PM
by