The Web

Articles & Analyses

The Misery of PA's Waiting Policy
By: Mohammad Al-Sahli
October 11, 2017

Some people are even more inclined to believe that the statements made by the US ambassador in Israel are personal, when he said that he understands Israel's right to expand and maintain its settlements and secure borders in any future settlement.

Therefore, they showed their angry with David Friedman, without referring to the policies of his administration, as if these statements "contradict" with the American position. It was clear that they expected the White House to respond immediately to the ambassador.

But what happened was that the official American position came in response to the "angry" statements, not the ambassador's. So, the State Department spokeswoman said that what he said "should not be interpreted as a change in the US policy".

What was hidden in the spokeswoman's talk is that the President Trump was the first one who attacked the «Security Council resolution against settlements», and the first who anticipated the «death of the two-state solution »and called for the transfer of the US embassy to Jerusalem.

David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, was nominated by Trump and the US Congress, and he is, as the US president's team, clearly biased toward the occupation.

This confirms that he is not dragged out of the American politics' swarm. So it is not true what one of the pillars of the Palestinian Authority said that Friedman is "ignorant of his country's positions”.

The statements of Washington's ambassador in Israel are consistent with US administration's conferred projects that exclude an independent Palestinian state.

That was clear when the US' envoy Greenblatt questioned President Abbas' position toward the confederation with Jordan during his previous visit to Ramallah. Thus, Trump's re - establishment of the settlement will return to the pre-first square, in the context of the talk of "regional peace", through arrangements that would draw a "new" political map for the region that ignores the Palestinians.

As the US administration does not see that Friedman's statements dragged away from its policies, it, like its predecessors, justifies Israel's 1967 aggression and the occupation of what is left of Palestine, as "secure borders" that has not yet been completed, for both the Trump administration and the Netanyahu government.

All that above, is confirmed by the nine conditions, that Greenblatt demanded the Palestinian Authority to implement, especially the cessation of violence and incitement against the occupation and the restructuring of the Palestinian situation in accordance with Israeli security considerations, in return for exploring ways to improve the living conditions of the Palestinians.

Thus, according to the indicators above, the basic lines for the American policies, is the exclusion of the independent Palestinian state, or the "two-state solution", and when that is announced by the US representative, Friedman, or else, that will make the Palestinian negotiator come to the negotiation with an empty bag, especially from the US promises.

It is important to remember, that the American determinants regarding the Palestinian issue, are not a coup against the American strategy towards the Palestinian issue, but rather an investment in the region, and of course the deterioration of the Palestinian situation, and Washington and Tel Aviv's understanding that the Palestinian negotiator and its political reference are in their policy of waiting.

The past few years have seen repeated announcements, calling for us to see spectacular political surprises and bombs in the United Nations General Assembly Hall, and we have only seen complaints against the occupation and the arrogance of its government.

This is repeated in the wake of Friedman's remarks, so, we hear about the intention of the Palestinian Authority to seek the full membership of Palestine in the United Nations, as if the announcers of these declarations did not remember that the Palestinian discourse in the international forum ignored the subject only about two weeks ago!

Members of the Executive Committee, of the Palestine Liberation Organization, were among those who held Friedmann alone, responsible for his statements that were identical to the Israeli vision, and they, at the same time, heading to his administration to ask for a "serious attitude" toward what he said. Other members of the committee itself linked these statements with the US policy toward ways to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and called for closing the door of betting on Washington, and pushing for the convention of an international conference under the supervision of the Security Council and the reference of the United Nations and its relevant resolutions.

There is a need for questioning the presence of the Executive Committee as a collective body concerned with leading the national public affairs and implementing the decisions of national institutions and the Central Council, especially regarding the political process in terms of establishing it, in accordance with the resolutions of international legitimacy, basically resolution 194, which guarantees the right of return for Palestinian refugees to their homes and properties.

The Committee has previously agreed to cut off with the settlement with its existing conditions and decided to launch the Palestinian effort towards the United Nations, which have recognized, in the fall of 2012, of Palestine as a state under occupation with the borders of June 4th, 1967, and with East Jerusalem as its capital.

This achievement has been frozen at the limits of the UN resolution, and it has not been invested and built on, as well as Palestine's membership in the international institutions, including the ICC, and the recent PLO Central Council's decisions have been disrupted.

The only door that has been kept open is the one that overlooks only on the yard and waiting for Washington and its successive administrations.

What the Palestinian official policy does not want to recognize is the direction of US policy toward PA, which has overstepped the stage of motivation and then giving promises, to the stage of direct orders through terms and demands as stipulated the nine conditions.

Therefore, what is being discussed about the time that the US administration needs to formulate its plan regarding the settlement is in fact the timeframe that it deems necessary to make its arrangements as a reality, if things are going according to its plan in the region.

As for the Palestinian side's position of these arrangements, it is only steps and measures that the PA should take within this process.

It is not surprising that Greenblatt reintroduced the American conditions to be implemented if a single Palestinian government is formed for both the West Bank and Gaza, namely the recognition of Israel, and the agreements signed with it and the rejection of terrorism.

The American discourse on the settlement is very clear and expressed by its owners. Also Friedman's recent proposal is the beginning of scenarios for its implementation, all of which depend on the intersection of American and Israeli interests in the region. While the Arab concerned states including the Palestinian situation to join this which aims at fulfilling these interests, in exchange for calming their national concerns by mobilizing alliances, in the face of the dangers, created by both Tel Aviv and Washington.

Mohammad Al-Sahli is an Editor in Chief of Al-Hourriah newspaper, the official speaker of the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
Translated by: Rawan Al-Bash
Revised by: Ibrahim Motlaq

Share |
copyright © 2004 - dflp-palestine.net