There is an increasing need for unusual ideas and strategies during this delicate phase of dwindling hope for progress in the Middle East peace process, in light of increasing Israeli arrogance, rising Iranian sarcasm, worsening Palestinian and Arab divisions as well as regressing US policies. The basic question facing these issue and all those concerned is: what is required? Indeed, if what is required of Palestinian-Israeli negotiations are two states living side-by-side in peace and security, then what would be the shape of each of these states from an Israeli-Palestinian point of view, and who would take on the task of fair inquiry, so as to give the negotiation process purpose, credibility and tangible results on the ground, and so that it would not be a process of distraction and solace? Clearly the answer is that President Barack Obama should, if the United States wishes to sponsor and manage the peace process, ask this question to each of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and insist. Indeed, if he discovers that Netanyahu is being deceitful over the idea of a Palestinian state, and that he has formed in his mind a maimed and scattered image of such a state, then it is his duty either to announce abandoning his efforts, regardless of what good intentions and sincere resolve he may have, or to take the initiative and put forth the comprehensive vision of the US President of the shape of the Palestinian state which, in his opinion, negotiations should lead to and resolve should be set to work towards, because resolving this conflict – in his words – represents a cornerstone of the national interest of the US. The Palestinians and other Arabs are required, on their part, to adopt an alternative strategy to open-ended negotiations, as it is clear that Israel insists on refusing to sincerely accept the formula of the two-state solution. Such an alternative is available to the Arabs, and not the Palestinians, through various means, if the Arabs were to choose to use the weapon of natural resources or joint armed resistance – which they will not. They will not because they do not want to fight Israel, and because peaceful negotiation is their strategic choice. The Palestinians have no choice but to persevere with the peace process, while building society and the infrastructure of the Palestinian state with institutions, or the choice of civil disobedience – perhaps in parallel with building institutions. Any talk of the choice of armed resistance or of arming the intifada is but a trap being laid for the Palestinians while they alone pay the price. Perhaps there is an urgent need today for Arab countries to adopt a comprehensive strategy, one that would include establishing a treasury of generous funds that would be placed under the supervision and at the disposal of the Palestinian Authority alone, with the aim of supporting injured civilians in the case of civil resistance and as part of the support to the social fabric in Palestine. It is perhaps necessary today for some Arab countries to adopt a policy of gradual harm to the countries which look down on them in the region and which cause instability and tension for them and in their neighborhood, most prominently Israel and Iran. There are many civil means, from oil and gas to an intelligent campaign that would direct the political battle on the nuclear issue to an Israeli-Iranian arena. Indeed, it is not true that the Gulf States support an Israeli military strike against Iran and its oil facilities, despite Israeli claims to the contrary, as a military strike would come at a high cost for stability in the region. On the other hand, it is true that a number of important countries in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have the ability to harm Iran, either by restricting its activity in the harbors of GCC member-states or by increasing the level of oil production, gradually or in one fell swoop, which would lead to Iran going bankrupt and sinking into chaos. And certainly, the best way for the Arabs to intelligently harm Israel is to accelerate the process of laying the foundations of a Palestinian state, with a momentum of massive Arab investments that would unite the Palestinians behind building the state to end the occupation. The Barack Obama Administration has committed many mistakes in addressing the Palestinian-Israeli issue, the latest having come through a strategic mistake that is dangerous for the United States and for the Middle East, one which the administration committed through the words of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton this week. By misusing to begin with the term “unprecedented” in describing the stances of the Benjamin Netanyahu government on Israeli settlements, Hillary Clinton expressed the US's powerlessness towards Israel and revived the “blame game” practiced by various previous US administrations, including that of her husband Bill Clinton. It is noteworthy that some of the Middle Eastern figures in the Barack Obama Administration, in charge of directing US policy towards Israel, the Arabs and Iran, are figures from the Bill Clinton Administration whom the former president had put in charge of “managing” the peace process for seven years before awakening to the making of his historical biography in the eighth year. One of these figures is Dennis Ross, who is today considered, according to officials and diplomats in the Barack Obama Administration, to be the man in charge of drafting US foreign policy towards the Arab-Israeli conflict and towards Iran. He is the strong man at the National Security Council adjacent to the White House, and his mark is clear in what Hillary Clinton did this week. In his first and most important task when he worked in the Republican administration of George Bush Senior during the First Intifada, Dennis Ross played a major role in designing the Middle East peace process. He admits that the purpose of this process as he imagined it to be was to contain the Intifada and defuse it to protect Israel from it. Dennis Ross never concealed his sympathy for Israel and was always transparent in this respect, entering and leaving the White House through the gateway of AIPAC, which lobbies in the United States for Israel. What is noteworthy about this issue is not Dennis Ross, but rather Obama's selection of Dennis Ross as one of the pillars of his policy-making towards the Middle East and the Muslim world, as bringing Obama's opinions, ideas and sympathy together with Ross's record, experience, views and commitments certainly calls for one to “scratch one's head” in disapproval. In any case, whether it is Dennis Ross's mark, Barack Obama's vision or Hillary Clinton's blunder, the meaning of what the State Secretary/former First Lady said is that the Obama Administration approves of the Israeli stance on settlement-building, no matter how much Mrs. Clinton tried afterwards to satisfy her Arab colleagues in Marrakech by talking about the “well-known” US stance on settlement-building. What this means is that Benjamin Netanyahu has succeeded at the tactic of scoring points and the strategy of subjecting the United States yet again to what he wants without protest worth mentioning, neither from the new administration that pledged resolve and not to back down, nor from the Israeli interior which traditionally disapproves of Prime Ministers who challenge, oppose and walk the path of confrontation with the United States. What this means is that the United States has completely lost the means of influencing Israel, even when Israeli behavior comes at the expense of the US's national interest. More than this in fact, as it has lost the ability to pressure, not just because of the spontaneous stances of Congress in adopting Israeli stances even if they are illegal settlement-building, violations of the rules and conventions of war, or expelling innocent civilian families from their homes – but also because of the deep penetration of the strong Israeli lobby and its influence within the Barack Obama Administration. This will come at a very high cost for a long time and on the long-term, because restoring influence in the wake of aborted efforts such as these will not be easy. Indeed, the Obama Administration has shot itself in the legs and crippled itself by itself. The bottom line is that the Palestinians today stand alone accused, while the US stands alongside Israel, Russia refrains from delving into the core of this issue, Europe hides behind its finger pretending not to know what it should do, and the UN Secretary-General has finally taken a stance criticizing the measures taken by Israel against civilians in their homes and calling for freezing settlement-building. Thus the Quartet that brings these parties together has become a false witness over the “roadmap” to establishing the state of Palestine alongside Israel, because such a map originally required Israel to freeze all settlement-building activity, not just some of them, which is “unprecedented” as per the expression used by US Secretary of State. The fact of the matter is that neither Hillary Clinton nor the US President's Special Envoy George Mitchell has tried to ensure the full implementation of the roadmap. Both of them were present at the tripartite meeting in New York between Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, President Obama and Netanyahu when the term “restraining” settlement-building was introduced instead of freezing. Then Obama appeared on the next day to correct the mistake and the impression, speaking of the illegality of settlement-building, of Jerusalem, of the purpose of negotiations, of the permanent solution and of the establishment of the state of Palestine in place of the occupation that occurred in 1967. Then what is really US policy? If it is merely to accept what Israel, the state established through occupation, has to offer because that is the ceiling of the US's ability to influence Israel, then the predicament is indeed great. Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad says that “the task of ending the occupation has been entrusted to the international community and is not contingent on the force upon which the occupation rests”. He points to the fact that the Oslo process put an end to occupation under the custody of the occupying state and consecrated the method of “half the loaf” as a de facto situation for a period of 15 years, and that the US Administration has failed to ensure a basic and essential matter, which is to convince Israel to stop violating international law. He adds “it is reasonable then for the Palestinians to ask: who will guarantee us what negotiations will lead to if they were to continue on this basis?” What Salam Fayyad is saying is: ask Netanyahu what he has in mind when he speaks of a Palestinian state? Such a question is reasonable. If the shape of the Palestinian state follows Netanyahu's method and design because that is what the occupying state deems appropriate, then “the time has come to reconsider the principle of giving the occupying power the upper hand and the authority to make such a decision. Indeed, such a decision is the responsibility of the international community”. The US Administration's failure to convince Israel to freeze settlement-building only represents a necessary pretext to constructing the infrastructure of the Palestinian state. It requires generous and cohesive Arab support in an intelligent strategy of building the state and uniting the Palestinians behind building the state, far from Palestinian and Arab political quarrels and outbidding. Indeed, the most important civil disobedience to Israel is disobedience to the occupation through building state institutions and the infrastructure of Palestinian society, so that it may hold its head up high, confident while facing with building Israel's attempts to bring it to self-destruction. It is the duty of Arab countries to provide these possibilities, including institutionally through a support treasury that would eliminate the methods of “aid” through pleading or supplications. As for the Obama Administration, it must protect its president from being taken lightly, and protect the United States from the requirements of submission to Israel, even as it violates international law and legitimacy. Indeed, the last thing the United States needs today is a widening area of anger against it because of its blind and unconditional support for Israel, regardless of how arrogant it might become.
