The US Administration admitting this week its failure to convince Israel to agree to freeze what is under international law illegal settlement-building for a mere three months, until Palestinian-Israeli negotiations enter the phase of discussing the borders of the Palestinian state and the permanent situation, is tantamount to admitting President Barack Obama's personal failure and his being forced to submit to Israel's dictates. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has won his wager on time and on the Obama Administration's ignorance of the extent to which the Israeli establishment is deeply involved in US policy-making. Even when Obama escalated and spoke in the language of “US national interests”, the Israeli establishment was working on voiding this expression of what it should have required. Today, Netanyahu is wagering on the US backing down and on Barack Obama climbing downwards the ladder he had set up in full confidence two years ago when he entered the White House. Indeed, he wants to cling to the current state of affairs because it is in his interest, and he believes that neither the Europeans, nor the United Nations, nor Russia, and certainly not the Arabs, will produce a surprise that would throw a wrench in his works, especially as he holds the cards of war or non-war with Iran. The Palestinians, on their part, have started looking into the options available to them alone and to Arab countries, if they wish to support them, including the option of the Palestinian Authority ceasing to implement it commitments, since Israel refuses for its part to implement what it has committed to. This means not moving forward with “security” commitments, which in turn means that the Palestinian Authority will not remain tantamount to a buffer zone de facto protecting Israel. Such an option should awaken Israel, the Arabs, the international community and specifically the Quartet on the Middle East, comprising the United States, Russia, the United Nations and the European Union, which has almost become a “Quartet to lift reproach”. Indeed, it is time for the Quartet to take a serious initiative, especially as the Middle East is heading towards a dangerous year in 2011, one in which calculated wars, proxy wars and unintentional wars started by a spark could erupt. Lebanon is likely to be the prime danger zone for one or all of these wars. This is why there are governments and think tanks working on coupling justice and stability in deals carefully suggested by some, and randomly and arbitrarily put forward by others. As for the United States, it is trying to salvage its reputation after it has been run over by the WikiLeaks train. The Obama Administration has been receiving one blow after another, barely finding the time to pick itself up and move forward with calculated policies and strategies. That is a dangerous situation, as there are governments, groups, organizations and militias preparing to exploit US confusion, the Obama Administration's weakness and the President's recent acknowledgement that he had been dreaming when he thought he could make peace in the Middle East merely by declaring it to be in the US's national interest and by giving the issue priority. Indeed, political realism requires Obama to have the boldness to make use of the instruments of influence available to him, if he truly is determined to bring about change, and he has not done so. The window of surprise is closing, and so is that of trust in “Obamism”. This is why those whom this concerns must think seriously of the options available to them. The Palestinian issue has become divided into four parts: the “Arabs of the interior”, indicating the Palestinians who remained in their country and were not displaced in 1948, and who today are Israeli citizens whom Israeli politicians are looking for a way to get rid of, for demographic reasons and in order to cleanse the “Jewish state” of non-Jews; the “1948 Arabs”, who are the Palestinians who were displaced, most of whom live in refugee camps in Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, and who seek to have the right to return; and then there is the Palestinian Authority's West Bank and Gaza, which is governed by Hamas, both of them still far away from reconciliation. The most important and most powerful ammunition held by “Israel's Arabs” is their insistence on staying and on not yielding to Israeli or Palestinian provocation. They are, as Palestinians, remaining on their land and not leaving, regardless of how much Israeli authorities provoke them or the likes of Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman lay down plans to forcibly expel them or to treat them with apartheid-like racism. Just as importantly, Palestinian factions based in Gaza or Damascus must stop speaking of “activating” or “stirring up revolt among” the Arabs of the interior, because they are with this offering Israel a dangerous pretext on a silver platter. The message of Israel's Arabs to these factions is: take your hands off the Arabs of the interior and do not thrust us into issues of a military or security nature. Indeed, this would come at a high cost, and the only beneficiary would be the “ethnic cleansing” sought by some Israelis as the solution to the demographic crisis. The future of the 1948 Arabs is subject to the hindered Palestinian-Israeli negotiations, yet this does not justify mistreating Palestinian refugees and refusing to give them citizenship rights merely because this or that sectarian community rejects this for sectarian reasons, then claims to be resisting Israel for the sake of the rights and dignity of the Palestinians. In addition, it is unacceptable for the UNRWA (United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees) to fall into financial deficit while Arab countries spend billions on armament or on erecting cities. Arab support of UN relief today must be much more farsighted. A study bearing the number 4 and the title “Obstruction of Direct talks – and Available Options” conducted by the Palestinian Authority for the Fatah Revolutionary Council, with an introduction by Head of the Negotiations Affairs Department Doctor Saeb Erekat, explains in about 50 pages what has happened since last July in terms of Palestinian, US and Arab efforts, and presents the options available in case US efforts to convince Israel to extend the freeze on settlement-building for three months end in failure. The Arab Peace Initiative's follow-up committee is supposed to study and put forward “the appropriate procedure for demanding that the US Administration recognize the state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital, yet in the name of all Arab countries”. That is what was ratified at the Arab Summit in Sirt. The study delves deep into responses to what it expects the US Administration to say, such as that Palestine is not a state. The response would then be: what did the US do for Kosovo and East Timor, and what is it doing now in Southern Sudan? Then the study goes into the steps that would follow the expected refusal of successive proposals: from the Security Council to the General Assembly under the umbrella of “union for peace”, to establishing UN tutelage over the Palestinian territories, to forcing Israel to return to assuming the responsibilities of occupation directly following the semi-dissolution of the Palestinian Authority, to filing a lawsuit before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the United Nations, against Britain (the mandatory power in Palestine) or against all UN member-states for failure to implement binding legal commitments towards the Palestinian people. Gradual steps would be taken as follows, as stated in the study: “if Israel persists in settlement-building activity, the United States refuses to recognize the state of Palestine on the basis of the 1967 borders, the Security Council refuses to accept the state of Palestine as a full member of the United Nations on the basis of the borders of June 4, 1967 with East Jerusalem as its capital, Israel refuses to restore the situation on the ground as it was in the month of September 2000, the idea of UN tutelage is rejected and the countries convened refuse the idea of UN protection of the Palestinian people according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, at that moment, what would be the meaning of asking Israel (the occupying power) to bear its full responsibilities in Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 (including East Jerusalem)?” The answer according to the study: “defining the legal status of occupied Palestinian territories”. The answer lies in the fact that “we hold the alternative, and there is no answer except that the current situation must be changed”, knowing that Israel's strategy is to “maintain the current situation”. There is a defensive streak to this study, which repeats several times that “this is not a call for dissolving the PA, but rather a call for preventing Israel from destroying the PA”, and that “no one is speaking of dissolving the PA, because the occupying power is effectively destroying it”. The utmost clarity is absolutely necessary at this juncture and in this issue in particular: either seriously inform Israel and the Quartet that the Palestinian Authority is resolved to relinquish its security tasks, which are applauded by the international community and the results of which Israel enjoys, on the basis that it is not the PA's function to be the “buffer zone” while Israel eats away at Palestinian lands and rights; or focus on the fact that the Oslo process produced only one tangible result, which is the presence of the Palestinian Authority on Palestinian soil in order to create change from within, through measures, security and institutions, and to revive Palestinian trust in Palestinian ability to cause change and end the occupation by resisting with its institutions and civil disobedience. Indeed, as long as armed resistance is not a practical or realistic choice for the Palestinians, whether the PA is there or not, civil resistance is necessary and must be accompanied by a Palestinian and Arab political strategy, some of the elements of which are as follows: * For the Arab Peace Initiative Follow-up Committee to immediately set down an advanced and multilateral strategy to renewing the offer of the Arab Peace Initiative, not only in the international media and with great impetus, but also before parliaments and senates in every country in the world. In other words, for Arab leaders to ratify the revival of this initiative by sending messages to all of these councils with the request to listen to delegations that would explain the Arab Peace Initiative, along with an intense and high-tech media campaign. Indeed, many Arabs have connections with US television channels, and the time has come to make use of them positively. * For the campaign to collect recognitions from countries of the Palestinian state on the basis of the 1967 borders, as took place with Brazil and Argentina, to continue, while purposely focusing on similar countries, so as not to have ratification only from countries considered “revolutionary” at the expense of the Palestinians. Gathering such recognitions in a campaign having impetus and impact must take place through an immediate and practical strategy. * Presenting the parties to the Quartet with specific demands within specific timeframes, so that they may carry out their tasks towards establishing the Palestinian state and implement their pledges, while informing them that the era of “hiding behind one's finger” has ended, and that it is too late for encouraging diplomatic statements, because the alternative is washing one's hands of unilaterally implementing commitments. Indeed, the time has come to openly say: “there is no need for the Quartet anymore if it refuses to implement its pledges and to drive the parties concerned to implement their commitments”. * Lastly, it is imperative for Arab governments to be serious in dealing with the US Administration, especially after it has become clear that Obama has failed and after WikiLeaks has clarified what was hidden. And this means ceasing to pretend and to bargain with the Palestinian issue.
