THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume XIII, Issue # 6, January 5, 2011
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
WHY ISN'T OBAMA PRESSURING THE PALESTINIANS?
By Dr. Steven J. Rosen
U.S. FOREIGN POLICY IN THE MIDDLE EAST: U.S. PRESIDENT BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA & THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN
CONFLICT -- INACTION OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IN THE FACE OF THE PALESTINIAN LEADERS' REFUSAL TO
NEGOTIATE WITH THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT -- PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY PRESIDENT MAHMOUD ABBAS BLOCKING THE
SOLE PATH TOWARD A SOLUTION OF THE ISSUE REGARDING ISRAELI CONSTRUCTION OF JEWISH HOMES IN JEWISH
NEIGHBORHOODS OUTSIDE THE PRE-1967 LINE IN EAST JERUSALEM -- PALESTINIAN ABANDONMENT OF THE OSLO PEACE
PROCESS -- REVERSION TO THE PRE-OSLO STRATEGY OF THE PALESTINIANS REJECTING CONTACT WITH ISRAEL &
DEMANDING, INSTEAD, THAT THE GREAT POWERS IMPOSE ARAB TERMS ON THE JEWISH STATE -- ABBAS SETTING
PRECONDITIONS FOR RESUMPTION OF ISRAELI-PALESTIAN NEGOTIATIONS -- RETICENCE OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION
TO CONFRONT PALESTINIAN INTRANSIGENCE, REFLECTING SYMPATHY FOR THE ARABS & HOSTILITY TOWARD THE
ISRAELIS
FULL STORY:
For the first time since the Oslo peace process started 18 years ago, Palestinian leaders are openly refusing to negotiate
with the government of Israel, and U.S. President Barack Obama's administration is doing very little about it. As
Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority President, explained the policy on December 9, 2010, "We will not agree to
negotiate as long as settlement building continues." The Arab League is backing Abbas in this refusal, says League
chief Amr Moussa, because "the direction of talks has become ineffective and it has decided against the resumption of
negotiations."
But Abbas himself negotiated with seven previous Israeli Prime Ministers without such preconditions. For 17 years --
from the Madrid conference of October, 1991, through Abbas's negotiations with then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud
Olmert, which ended in 2008 -- negotiations moved forward, while Jerusalem construction continued. Madrid, Oslo I,
Oslo II, the Hebron Protocol, the Wye River Memorandum, Camp David, Taba, the disengagement from Gaza, and
Olmert's offer to Abbas -- all these events over the course of two decades were made possible by a continuing
agreement to disagree about Israeli construction of Jewish homes in Jewish neighborhoods outside the pre-1967 line in
East Jerusalem. But now, peace talks cannot even begin. Why the change?
U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledges that the Palestinians are creating a new precondition for talks to
begin. Settlements, she says, have "always been an issue within the negotiations.… There's never been a precondition."
But Clinton has not stated any public objection to Abbas making this a new excuse not to negotiate.
Abbas himself blames Obama. As he said in November, 2010, "At first, President Obama stated in Cairo that Israel must
stop all construction activities in the settlements. Could we demand less than that?" Some in the West are sympathetic
to Abbas's maneuver, which they see as a form of protest against an Israeli policy to which the United States and the
rest of the Middle East quartet, the four international players that steer peace efforts, also object. But when the
Palestinians spurn negotiations, they are blocking the sole path to a solution of the settlement issue, which can only be
a negotiated agreement over borders. As the U.S. State Department spokesman's said on August 2, "Absent a direct
negotiation, there will be no end to the conflict, there will be no peace agreement, and there will be no Palestinian state.
That's a fact."
There is also the question of whether Abbas's motive here is actually about the settlement issue, or rather to drive a
wedge between Obama and Israel and induce the United States to impose a solution in lieu of negotiations. Isn't this a
reversion to the pre-Oslo strategy of rejecting contact with Israel and demanding instead that the great powers impose
Arab terms on the Jewish state?
In refusing to meet with Israel, Abbas is violating one of the most important commitments his predecessor Yasir Arafat
made at the start of the Oslo process, which included this pledge to then Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin on September 9,
1993: "The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between
the two sides, and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through
negotiations." It is also a direct violation of the pledge that Abbas himself made barely three years ago at the Annapolis
conference. As witnessed by foreign ministers of 47 countries on November 27, 2007:
"We agree to immediately launch good-faith bilateral
negotiations in order to conclude a peace treaty,
resolving all outstanding issues, including all core
issues without exception, as specified in previous
agreements. We agree to engage in vigorous,
ongoing and continuous negotiations."
Abbas is also rejecting the imperative laid down by the Middle East "Quartet" in March, 2010, demanding "the
resumption, without preconditions, of direct, bilateral negotiations that resolve all final status issues as previously
agreed by the parties." It is a repudiation of Obama's Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who said,
"We do not believe in preconditions. We do not
impose them. And we urge others not to impose
preconditions."
It is a dismissal of an objective considered vital by the Obama administration, to "re-launch negotiations as soon as
possible and without preconditions, which is in the interests of everyone in the region." Abbas is spurning all appeals
from Clinton, who says that "negotiations between the parties is the only means by which all of the outstanding claims
arising out of the conflict can be resolved."
But the Obama administration is raising no public objection to the Palestinians' stance. It has not expressed one word
of criticism of Abbas, nor used anything resembling the pressure tactics Obama has so freely used against the Israeli
side. In fact, Obama did quite the opposite on October 7, 2010, when he issued a special waiver of Section 7040(a) of
the Foreign Assistance Act to transfer additional funds directly to the Palestinian Authority, just as it was announcing
its refusal to negotiate.
Members of Congress are starting to take notice of the administration's reticence to confront Palestinian intransigence.
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Republican - Florida), the incoming U.S House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman, said on
December 23 of Palestinian leaders:
"They know they don't have to do a darn thing;
with this administration, they will get a blank
check, and they will always get helped out.…
Try examining where they're using their money
and where our U.S. dollars are going."
Her Democratic counterpart, California's Howard Berman, the outgoing Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs
Committee, said a few days earlier, referring to Abbas's unilateral drive to seek early recognition of Palestinian
statehood, "If they try to circumvent negotiations, they'll lose the support of a lot of people like me, and it will
jeopardize their foreign aid as well."
As it happens, a statute is already in place, requiring sanctions against such violations of the solemn commitments the
Palestinians made. The Middle East Peace Commitments Act of 2002 notes that "Resolution of all outstanding issues
in the conflict between the two sides through negotiations" is one of the core commitments to which the Palestinian
Authority has obligated itself, and it requires the President to notify Congress of such violations and impose penalties,
which may include a "prohibition on United States assistance to the West Bank and Gaza." When it returns to
Washington this month, the new Congress may not share Obama's reluctance to criticize Abbas. With the support of
House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the new House, in particular, may be willing to do
something about it.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
American Government & the U.S. Presidency:
Presidential Politics & National Leadership.
Israel & the Arabs -- The Israeli-Arab Conflict
Middle East -- Arabs, Arab States,
& Their Middle Eastern Neighbors
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
Islamism & Jihadism -- Radical Islam & Islamic Terrorism
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War, Peace, & Geopolitics in the Real World:
Foreign Affairs & U.S. National Security
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
Dr. Steven J. Rosen heads the Washington Project of the Middle East Forum. He holds a Ph.D. degree from the Maxwell School of
Diplomacy at Syracuse University. From 1968 to 1978, Dr. Rosen taught Political Science and International Relations at several universities
-- the University of Pittsburgh, Brandeis University, and the Australian National University. From 1978 to 1982, he was Associate Director
of the National Security Strategies Program at the RAND Corporation. From 1982 to 2005, he was Director of Foreign Policy Issues at the
American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). In 2009, he joined the Middle East Forum's staff as a visiting fellow, with special
responsibility for U.S. foreign policy. Dr. Rosen, along with Dr. Walter S. Jones, co-authored a bestselling textbook, The Logic of
International Relations, which went through five editions from 1974 to 1982.
The foregoing article by Dr. Rosen was originally published in Foreign Policy, January 4, 2011, and can be found
on the Internet website maintained by the Middle East Forum, a foreign policy think tank which seeks to define and
promote American interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, working for
Palestinian Arab acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional
democracy in the Middle East, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S.
interests vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
(URL: http://www.meforum.org/2814/obama-pressuring-palestinians)
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
January 5, 2011
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume XIII, 2011
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity