Mrs Hillary Clinton said in Jerusalem that what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements is unprecedented, in the pre-negotiations context. In Marrakech however, she said that a partial freeze to the settlements is not enough, and that the U.S administration wants a complete halt to the settlements. She then said that a partial suspension is better than nothing. The U.S Secretary of State must have appreciated the magnitude of the popular and official Arab anger; for this reason, she went back on what she had said 24 hours ago in front of the Israelis, in front of the Arab foreign ministers, before again adjusting and changing her stance [later on]. Mrs. Clinton is very well informed on the issue at hand, and does indeed have the desire to see through the negotiations that would ultimately result in the establishment of a Palestinian state, side by side with Israel – a position that she also shares with President Barack Obama and the entire new administration. Nevertheless, desire is one thing and the ability to make it happen is another; as such, the retreat by the administration exposes its weakness and hesitation, and betrays its lack of a comprehensive plan that has yet to be formulated. In fact, Abu Mazen was the victim of this weak American stance, while Netanyahu was practically the winner in the first round owing to the tripartite meeting in New York, since it was held while the settlements continued unabated. He will win the second and third rounds and every round as long as the US administration has not yet put forth a plan and a timetable for the peace negotiations. In the meantime, Abu Mazen seems as if he won the favour of the United States but lost his people; this is because he placed all his eggs in the American basket and then discovered it to be bottomless. The Americans had effectively slit his throat from vein to vein by putting pressure on him in what regards the Goldstone report, and then by eliminating the settlement freeze as a precondition to negotiations. Furthermore, the only reason that he is not bleeding is because the Bush administration had “dried his blood”, as the Palestinians say. I am writing this article while the Western newspapers are full of analyses about Barack Obama “a year on”, meaning a year after he won the elections, although writing about his first year in the White House requires one to wait until the 20th of January, 2010, when he completes a full year of having succeeded George W. Bush. However, it seems that the Western press, in particular the American Press, has seen enough to judge Obama without having to wait for the last three months of his first year. Their verdict as such is that the man has moved from “an audacity to win”, as a slogan of his election campaign, to “a timidity to govern”, since he now seems to be weak and timid, and prefers to avoid any confrontations. How do Barack Obama's policies affect President Mahmoud Abbas? If the result has been so far the same as what happened with the previous administration, then Bush was better for Abbas since his administration was openly aggressive and ignorant; however, the Obama administration is moderate, smart and positive in a sugar-coated manner. Yet the result has been the same...so far. I blame Abu Mazen because he tried to please the Americans more than he should have, and then equally blame Hamas and its partisans for the accusations of treason, and for slandering and lying unjustifiably. I have a bet with a growing number of readers that President Mahmoud Abbas will not offer any concessions whatsoever in what relates to the core rights, which is something that the near future will bring to light. The door is open to all readers to join this bet, with or against me, and he who shall live long shall see. Abu Mazen today is in a much worse situation than when he was Prime Minister in 2003. Nonetheless, he will not resign because, in my opinion, he will never accept that Hamas's leadership will score a personal victory against him, since their dispute has now become as personal as it is political. Still, he might find an exit by telling the Americans that he will not run for president again, when the time for the presidential and legislative elections comes next January, and that they need to find someone else who can bear the consequences of their weak policies in the region. (He will agree to postpone the elections should Hamas sign the reconciliation; however, the latter rejects this for fear of losing in the elections). Another option for Abu Mazen is to stand up to the Americans and declare a popular policy, i.e. an extremist policy, which will cause the Palestinians to lose the limited American support they have, leaving them with nobody, as Hamas will never find a foreign party that would deal with the organization. This is because the latter is classified as a terrorist group in the United States and the European Union, while the Jewish lobby is powerful enough to prevent any changes in the stance towards Hamas. Then there is also the US Congress which is even worse than the Knesset, and which has voted against the Goldstone report with a majority of 344 votes to 33. In the meantime, Netanyahu and his foreign minister are negotiating this week in the U.S, while the Israeli officials with the exception of Avigdor Liberman are spending as much time in Washington as they do in their own offices. This is all while the Arab countries are all weak and are disputing among themselves. While most of the Arab countries support Abu Mazen in their declared stances, some amongst them are fuelling the strife, but which ultimately remains the responsibility of the Palestinians before anyone else... [email protected]
