In his election campaign, Trump did not go to huge lengths to ingratiate himself with the Palestinians, mostly demonstrating his sympathy for Israel. This can be explained, of course, by the latter’s ability to influence public opinion in America. Being a pragmatist who reacts quickly to new circumstances, however, Trump knows that if America’s focus is overly accentuated and one-sided, it will scupper any attempts to resolve the conflict. Hence Trump’s discernible willingness to offer his supposedly impartial mediation services.

A great deal of credit for organising Abbas’ visit to the US belongs to the Egyptian president, el-Sisi, and King Abdullah II of Jordan, who visited the US and met with Trump at the beginning of April. First they convinced the US president that it would be impossible to win over the Arab-Muslim world while demonstrating an openly pro-Israel stance and ignoring the Palestinians. Then at the end of April, before he left for America, Abbas visited Amman and Cairo, where he was given «detailed instructions» on the preferred way to behave with the not-always-so-predictable Trump. It is no secret that even some members of the Palestinian leadership are against any kind of engagement with the US president because of statements he has made in the past. But high-ranking Egyptian and Jordanian officials persuaded Abbas that it was still necessary to go and convey Palestine’s position to Trump directly, who, despite everything, «knows how to listen».

The importance of Jordan and Egypt as the main proponents of Palestinian interests in America is due to the fact that Washington regards them as its closest ‘moderate’ allies in the Arab world. They also have peace agreements with Israel and share a border with Palestine. At the same time, it was Cairo and Amman that were behind the fairly strongly-worded resolution on the Palestinian question at this year’s Arab League Summit held on 29 March. Among others things, it said that relocating the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem was unacceptable (Trump had said he intended to carry out such a relocation). 

It should be recognised that the Palestinian leader coped with his mission in the US as far as he was able. This was helped a great deal by the fact that a favourable situation had been established within Palestine on the eve of his meeting with the Americans: for the first time in its history, Hamas announced that it was ready to recognise the 1967 borders, meaning it is also ready to recognise the state of Israel. In addition, Abbas did not hesitate to impose sanctions at one point against the ruling Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. It has also been reported that there is a serious possibility of a reconciliation between the Fatah and Hamas movements in the near future. There is no doubt that this enhanced his standing in the recent negotiations. Even Israeli experts like Asaf Gabor, an analyst for the information and analysis portal NRG, are surprised at Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas’s «exceptional capacity» for «political survival». In this regard, he is being compared to Shimon Peres, who spent a long time on Israel’s political scene. The meeting with the US president at the White House is being seen as yet another example of Abbas’ political talent. America’s plans to achieve a comprehensive deal between Israel and the moderate Arab countries by solving the Palestinian problem «has made Abbas a key player in the Middle East game once more». The Palestinian leader is actively taking advantage of the opportunity afforded him to publicise the demands of his people yet again and show that they are in strict accordance with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions.

Trump, for his part, has not formulated anything remotely meaningful. He has just stated his «strong» desire for a «definitive solution» to the Palestine-Israel problem, without specifying a single point of this future «great deal». The fact that the US president has almost given up on the idea of «two states for two peoples» is particularly disquieting. After all, this is the premise on which the entire philosophy of the peace process is based. Its alternatives are unrealistic and can only lead to renewed turbulence in the Middle East. Thus, Palestinian leaders have already stated that if international support for the creation of their independent state continues to wane, then their next step will be to give up on the idea. Instead, they will recognise themselves as part of a single state with the Israelis, the current de facto situation, and demand full civil rights. There would be around six million Arabs and the same number of Jews living in this state, but given the demographics, the majority, and the power with it, would quickly pass to the Arab community. Failure to grant Arabs their full civil rights would automatically lead to Israel being designated an apartheid regime, with all its attendant diplomatic and economic consequences.

Incidentally, the Palestinian media is reporting that the number of supporters of this particular option among ordinary Palestinians is growing rapidly. For understandable reasons, Israel’s leaders regard this option as simply unacceptable. Their version of giving up on the «two state for two peoples» idea, which Netanyahu is trying to sell to Trump, involves returning to the pre-1967 status. In accordance with this, the Gaza Strip would be handed over to Egypt in its entirety, and the western bank of the River Jordan would be returned to Jordan in a considerably reduced form. The main settlements established there and the whole of Jerusalem would naturally remain part of Israel. This sounds fanciful since it is not only the Palestinians who are opposed to the plan, but also the alleged ‘beneficiaries’. For political, economic and security reasons, neither Egypt nor Jordan even want to hear about anything like this. It is easy to imagine the kind of chaos the region would be plunged into should there be any attempt to realise these so-called alternative options

At a joint press conference with Abbas, Trump, with his characteristic bravado, announced the «start» of the process that, as he put it, will lead to peace. According to the US president, throughout his life he has always heard that the toughest deal on earth is the deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians. «Let’s see if we can prove them wrong», suggested Trump.

As local journalist Amir Tibon writes, Israel is «surprised» at how quickly the Palestine-Israel problem found its way onto Trump’s agenda and the speed with which he is tackling it. Not without a little sarcasm, he refers to this behaviour as «a personal obsession» of the president. Tibon believes that neither side of the conflict, nor the majority of the White House staff, were prepared for such a course of events. Uri Savir reports that there are fears within the Israeli leadership that Trump’s recent meetings with the leaders of Egypt, Jordan and Palestine may have influenced him with regard to accepting the famous Arab Peace Initiative of 2002. However, if the Americans think that relocating the US embassy to Jerusalem will be enough to persuade the Israeli leadership to make concessions, then they are mistaken. 

On the Palestinian side, well-known journalist and media activist Daoud Kuttab also notes that the majority of Palestinians do not have high hopes that Washington’s recent resurgence of activity will lead to a solution. Kuttab believes that if Trump’s first 100 days in office proved to him how difficult it really is being president, then he will soon find that «getting Israelis to concede occupied Palestinian territories as part of a land-for-peace ‘ultimate deal’ is much, much harder». Returning the occupied territories according to the «land for peace» formula as part of a ‘final solution’ to the conflict is an almost impossible task.

Angry responses are being heard from within the Palestinian Authority (PA) regarding the video Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released Sept. 9 in which he claims that the Palestinian leadership is demanding a Palestinian state without Jews and that that is equivalent to ethnic cleansing.

A Palestinian source close to President Mahmoud Abbas told Al-Monitor that Palestinian officials at the Muqata are usually not surprised by the prime minister's attacks on the PA in general and Abbas in specific. This time, however, they said, Netanyahu's words constitute an escalation in the Israeli prime minister's incitement of hatred against them.

“Netanyahu painted a distorted picture of an imaginary reality in which normal relations exist between Jews and Arabs,” senior Fatah member Qadura Fares told Al-Monitor. “According to him, there is no occupation, no settler violence against Palestinians, no confiscation or takeover of lands, no arrests of Palestinians at the roadblocks, no shooting and killing, and even no uprooting of olive trees.”

Ayman Odeh, a Knesset member and the chairman of the predominantly Arab Joint List, also asserted to Al-Monitor that Netanyahu is constructing an “imaginary reality.” In the video, Netanyahu compares the Arab citizens of the State of Israel to the settlers in Judea and Samaria and says that no one has ever seriously claimed that the almost 2 million Arabs living in Israel constitute an obstacle to peace. “On the contrary. Israel's diversity shows its openness and readiness for peace,” Netanyahu says.

Odeh spoke out against these words, saying, “Netanyahu is trying to rewrite history when he compares a minority living in a certain place for generations and generations — a minority that the State of Israel rose up against — to settlers who were moved against international law to occupied territory while trampling on the human rights of the West Bank and Gaza residents.”

Senior PA officials rubbed their hands in glee following the immediate, sharply critical responses directed at Netanyahu. US State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau criticized the very use of the term “ethnic cleansing,” stating, “We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful.”

By contrast, Abbas waited for two full days, until Sept. 11, before embarking on his counterattack, saying, “The government of Israel is [the one] carrying out ethnic cleansing and deliberately killing — acts that have exposed it to international criticism all over the world.” Why did it take him more than 48 hours to respond?

It was disclosed to Al-Monitor that PA officials took the time to analyze the content of Netanyahu's video clip in an attempt to understand the timing. In other words, what caused Netanyahu to attack Palestinian leaders and those of other countries, including the United States, at this point in time, when there is no serious international initiative on the agenda?

Senior officials in Ramallah believe that Netanyahu's words were directed at Washington, given that he mentioned the two largest minority groups in the United States: “Would you accept ethnic cleansing in your own country? A territory without Jews, without Hispanics, without blacks?” the prime minister asks.

According to the above-mentioned source, who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity, the Palestinians think that Netanyahu's words were not only directed at Washington. They also think that the prime minister is trying with all his might to strangle the initiative by Russian President Vladimir Putin to host a summit between Abbas and Netanyahu in Moscow in the near future. The Palestinian president has already agreed to meet the Israeli prime minister in Moscow, and according to the Palestinians, Netanyahu has also agreed to the meeting in principle, but does not intend to follow through with it.

The Russian Interfax news agency issued an announcement Sept. 8 that the two sides had agreed in principle to a meeting. Yet at the very same time, Netanyahu's office issued a statement to the effect that the prime minister was still weighing the proposal. Thus, say the Palestinians, Netanyahu is back to his old tricks: He says yes to a summit while simultaneously doing everything to put obstacles in its path.

According to the Palestinians, Netanyahu answered in the affirmative only to rid himself of Russian pressure and then set to work against the initiative. “Netanyahu let loose by shooting in all directions, then buried every possible diplomatic initiative before it even got off the ground,” said Fares. “[In the clip] he shot at the Americans, the Europeans and the [Palestinians], leaving no chances for a meeting. When you accuse someone of ethnic cleansing, how can you meet with him? How will public opinion on your turf agree to such a meeting?”

Thus, Abbas went on the counteroffensive only after analyzing Netanyahu's words. He focused mainly on the international isolation in which Israel finds itself, as he sees it, asserting that this diplomatic isolation was the reason why Netanyahu is trying to torpedo the summit — that is, to shield himself from additional diplomatic damage in Moscow.

The Palestinians believe that they are coming out on top in the current, well-covered public wrestling match with Netanyahu. They feel that Netanyahu climbed up too high a tree and used flawed terminology, thus earning them lots of brownie points. They think this will help them recruit additional international support at the United Nations for establishing a Palestinian state.

al-monitor.com

Abbas’ unforeseen announcement on August 27 that he, along with a few others, will resign from the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Executive Committee and his call for an emergency session of the Palestine National Council (PNC) is a testament to his poor management. More, it shows his utter disregard for the minimally-required threshold of responsible leadership.

Abbas, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, has used and discarded the PLO and its various, now near-defunct, institutions as his personal political playground: summoning PNC members to vote on pre-determined and decided agendas and to cast and re-cast roles within the PLO’s Executive Committee as a way to punish and reward.

Now, at the age of 80, Abbas is obviously concerned about his legacy, the fate of the PLO and his Palestinian Authority (PA), once he is gone. Whatever political maneuvering he has planned for the future (including the selection of new Executive Committee members, which will be overseen by him and by his allies) is hardly encouraging. According to the Unity deal signed between Abbas’ faction, Fatah and Hamas, the restructuring of the PLO as a pre-requisite to include both Hamas and the Islamic Jihad in one unifying and relatively representative Palestinian body was a top priority.

Well, not anymore. Hamas is furious with Abbas’ call for reconvening the PNC, a two-day sessionscheduled to be held in Ramallah, West Bank next month. The Gaza-headquartered Movement iscalling on Palestinian factions not to participate. Either way, further Palestinian disunity is assured.

Now that unity remains elusive, Hamas is seeking its own alternatives to breaking the Gaza siege by conducting what is being described as ‘indirect talks’ with Israel, via the notorious former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. The latter has reportedly met Hamas leader, Khaled Meshaal, on more than one occasion. The discussions included a long-term ceasefire between Hamas and Israel in exchange for the permission of a safe sea passage where Palestinians in Gaza can enjoy a degree of freedom, bypassing Israeli and Egyptian siege and restrictions.

Needless to say, if the reports regarding Blair’s role in the indirect negotiations and Hamas’ intentions are accurate, it would indeed be a great folly. On the one hand, Blair’s pro-Israel record disqualifies him from the role of any honest mediation. On the other, Resistance or truce is not a political decision to be determined by a single faction, no matter how great its sacrifices or how trustworthy its intentions.

In addition, Abbas is in no position to criticize Hamas for its talks with Blair. It is particularly disingenuous that Abbas and his party are accusing Hamas of flouting Palestinian Unity and consensus, while both— Abbas and Fatah— have contributed to Palestine’s political afflictions more than any other leader or faction in the past. In fact, while Gaza subsisted and suffered terribly under a protracted Israeli siege and successive wars, Abbas operated his PA outfit in Ramallah with the full consent of the Israeli Government. The so-called ‘security coordination’, chiefly aimed at crushing Palestinian Resistance in the West Bank, continued unabated.

This is what Israeli political commentator, Raviv Drucker, wrote in Haaretz in an article that reprimanded Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, for failing to appreciate the value of Abbas:

“Our greatest high-tech geniuses working in the most sophisticated laboratories could not invent a more comfortable Palestinian partner. A leader with no one to the left of him in the Palestinian political arena and one who, when his enemy, Israel, bombs his people in Gaza, comes out with a statement criticizing those who kidnap Israeli soldiers.”

Abbas has shown little compassion for Gaza. Neither has he demonstrated any respect for the Palestinian people nor has he invested sincere efforts aimed at making Palestinian unity his top priority. It is rather telling that he is activating the PNC, summoning its nearly 700 members, not to discuss the intensifying Palestinian crises— from Gaza to Jerusalem to Yarmouk—but rather to concoct another cozy arrangement for him and his cronies.

Yet, this crisis of leadership precedes Abbas.

The PNC’s first meeting was held in Jerusalem in 1964.  Since then and for years now, despite the Parliament’s many flaws, it serves an important mission. It was a platform for Palestinian political dialogue; and, over the years, it helped define Palestinian national identity and priorities. But gradually, starting with Arafat’s elections as the head of the PLO in February 1969, the PNC ceased being a Parliament, and became, more or less, a political rubber stamp that validated all decisions made by Arafat’s PLO and, specifically, his Fatah faction.

This has been highlighted repeatedly throughout history with several prominent examples:

On November 12, 1988 the PNC convened in Algiers to approve of a political strategy based on UN Resolutions 242 and 338, the habitual US condition for engaging the PLO.  At the end of deliberation and, based on that approval, Arafat announced an independent Palestinian State, to be established in the Occupied Territories, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

Despite this, the US still argued that the PNC statement did not qualify for an ‘unconditional’ acceptance of Resolution 242, hence pressing Arafat for more concessions. Arafat flew to Geneva and addressed the UN General Assembly on December 13, 1988, since the US refused to grant him an entry visa to speak at the UN Headquarters in New York. He labored to be even more specific.

However, the US maintained its position, compelling Arafat, on the next day, to reiterate the same previous statements, this time, explicitly renouncing “all forms of terrorism, including individual, group or state terrorism.”

This was not the only time the PNC and its respected members were dragged into the political gambles of Palestinian leaders. In 1991, they voted in favor of direct negotiations in Madrid between Palestinians and Israel, only to be hoodwinked by Arafat, who negotiated a secret agreement in Oslo that paid little heed to Palestinian consensus. PNC was once more summoned to Gaza in 1996 to omit parts of the Palestinian Charter deemed unacceptable by Netanyahu and the then US President, Bill Clinton. As PNC members voted, Clinton, present at the meeting, nodded in agreement.

But unlike Arafat’s misuse of democracy and manipulation of the PNC—which is no longer representative or, with its current factional makeup is, frankly, irrelevant—Abbas’ game is even more dangerous.

Arafat used the Council to ratify or push his own agenda, which he mistakenly deemed suitable for Palestinian interests. Abbas’ agenda, however, is entirely personal, entirely elitist and entirely corrupt. Worse, it comes at a time when Palestinian unity is not just a matter of smart strategy, but is critical in the face of the conceivable collapse of the entire Palestinian national project.

There is no doubt that the moment when Abbas exits the scene has arrived. That could either become a transition into yet another sorry legacy of an undemocratic Palestinian leadership or itcould serve as an opportunity for Palestinians, fed up with the endemic corruption, political tribalism and across-the-board failure, to step forward and challenge the moral collapse of the Palestinian Authority and the charade of self-serving ‘democracy’ of factions and individuals.

Ramzy Baroud, foreignpolicyjournal.com

Kerry announced that the Israeli and Palestinian negotiating teams had agreed to begin (once again) earnest talks to deliver on a final peace settlement that would deal with all outstanding «final status issues». Kerry said the next round of negotiations is scheduled to finish after a period of nine months. 

The gestation period of nine months is no doubt a random number. But it does invite comparison to an expectant birth. Unfortunately, we can say with near certainty that the end result will be stillborn. History tells us so.

Every White House administration from President Jimmy Carter in the 1970s through to the present has stepped forward periodically to herald an imminent «just peace» between Palestinians and Israelis; and every time, cruelly, this promise comes to nothing. Well, actually, it does come to something: the territories and rights of the Palestinians are continually ravaged and diminished as the violations of the Israeli state inexorably expand…

One of modern history’s longest conflicts has festered and metastasized for decades because of this fundamental problem: the United States is not an honest broker in the quest for a just peace. Washington is part of the problem. John Kerry, like so many of his predecessors, may pose as an even-handed matchmaker between two quarrelling sides. But the simple fact is that the US is not a neutral arbiter. It is the patron, sponsor, architect, advocate and accomplice of one side – Israel. 

In coaxing the Palestinians back to the negotiating table, Secretary Kerry reportedly dangled the lure of $4 billion in private investments to the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas. But we have to put that incentive in perspective. This is the amount of financial and military aid that Washington has been plying Israel with every year for decades.

At the opening of the «talks about talks» earlier this week, Kerry exhorted: «If the leaders on both sides continue to show strong leadership and a willingness to make those tough choices and a willingness to reasonably compromise, then peace is possible».

The cynicism in these words is astounding. Willingness to reasonably compromise? The only side that is ever compelled to make compromises, and unreasonable compromises, too, is the Palestinian side. 

For a start, the Palestinian Authority does not have a mandate from the Palestinian people to represent them on vital national issues. The PA cabal rules over the West Bank territory without elections. It has negligible support among Palestinians in the second biggest occupied territory of Gaza along the Mediterranean coast. The elected Hamas administration in Gaza is opposed to the current peace negotiations and has been ostracized by the Israeli regime for the past six years owing to its more militant political stance. 

The PA of Mahmoud Abbas is seen as a more pliable participant in talks with the Israelis and therefore is lionized by Washington as the legitimate representative of the Palestinian cause – even though it very arguably is not. The military coup in Egypt that ousted Muslim Brotherhood President Mohamed Morsi on 3 July has been a political blow to its ally Hamas. This may have given Washington a window of opportunity to cajole the rival PA into the latest phase of the putative peace process. 

So the first instance of compromise by the Palestinians is that they are not even permitted to have a strong, legitimate negotiating party to robustly represent their outstanding historical interests. 

Subsequent compromises flow from this first one. Formerly, the Palestinian position going into talks insisted on explicit recognition of substantive issues. These issues include: a commitment by Israel to return to borders that existed before the 1967 Six Day War. This reasonable demand is supported by United Nations Security Council Resolutions, as well as by international laws and treaties, such as the Fourth Geneva Convention and UN Charter. 

Other substantive Palestinian preconditions are: the right of East Jerusalem (Al Quds) to be the capital of any eventual Palestinian state; the cessation of Israeli settlement construction in occupied territories; the right of return for up to four million Palestinians evicted from their homelands going back to the violent inception of Israel in 1948; and the release of up to 5,000 Palestinian political prisoners held in Israeli jails, as was stipulated under the Oslo Peace Accords signed 20 years ago in 1993. (There are no Israeli prisoners held by Palestinians.)

During US President Barack Obama’s first administration, Washington ostensibly urged recognition of the 1967 borders and the freezing of Israeli settlements. 

However, the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu haughtily snubbed Washington and the Palestinians on all counts. The unchecked Israeli building of new settler units on occupied Palestinian land, including provocatively in East Jerusalem, was the major reason why previous negotiations floundered and have not resumed for the past three years. There are now some 500,000 Israelis living in more than 120 illegal settlements in occupied Palestinian territories. 

The Obama administration has quietly backed down on its earlier position. The Palestinian and Israeli sides have now come back to the negotiating table without any commitment from Israel to deal with any of the above substantive concerns. Indeed, while talks about talks were taking place in Washington this week, it emerged that Netanyahu has given the go-ahead to the building of thousands of more settler units in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. 

The truly pathetic thing is that the Palestinians have been so relentlessly browbeaten and violated by the Israeli state and so relentlessly betrayed by Washington that their negotiators have also given up on the basic, reasonable demands upon which a peace settlement might be premised. 

Through brute force and intransigence, the Israeli state has made a mockery of international law and negotiations. This is not negotiation – it is a smash-and-grab colonisation of Arab land without any limit. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have said so on and off the record. For them, the «peace process» is a just a cover to buy time so that they can establish more «facts on the ground», that is, the theft of more and more Palestinian territory. 

In this contest between unequals Washington has done its utmost to redouble the inequality. Far from overseeing a level playing field, the presumed arbiter has tilted the field to an impossible gradient against the Palestinians while also moving the political goalposts to an unreachable distance. 

An indicator of the partisan position of the US is the appointment of Martin Indyk as Washington’s interlocutor in the upcoming negotiations. Indyk is former US ambassador to Israel under Presidents Clinton and Bush Junior. He is also closely aligned with the powerful Israeli lobby in Washington. Kerry said of Indyk this week: «He brings a deep appreciation for the art of US diplomacy in the Middle East.»

The art of US diplomacy in the Middle East is evidently to give Israel a carte blanche to do whatever it likes with regard to trampling on Palestinian rights and lives. Israel rains down missiles and bombs on civilians in Gaza, as it did in early 2009 and at the end of 2012, killing hundreds of women and children, and all Washington does is reiterate its support for Israel’s «right to defend itself». This is not the function of an honest broker; it is the collusion of an accomplice in state terrorism. 

This policy of the US towards Israel is not out of mere weakness in the face of the Israeli lobby, as some analysts contend. Rather it based on the essential role that the Israeli state performs in the projection of US imperialist interests across the strategically important Middle East. A just settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is antithetical to US imperialist hegemony in the region. This is because US power is predicated on an expansionist militarist Israel that serves as a garrison state to thwart genuine Palestinian and Arab democratic development.

US diplomacy is therefore not a catalytic ingredient for finding a peaceful solution. US imperialism is the overarching, impeding problem. But the trite rhetoric from Washington on the «tough challenges to find peace» is taken at face value by a vapid Western mainstream media and given credibility. 

The premise of a proper peace process between Israelis and Palestinians being furnished in Washington is fundamentally misplaced. For it is a hollow illusory foundation that in reality and despite the rhetoric is never meant to serve as a cornerstone for any sustainable settlement. It is a charade to give the US and Israeli parties a semblance of earnest, behind which they can continue their pernicious imperialist policies and projections. 

The correct place and premise for a genuine peace process is the International Court of Justice, where the past and ongoing egregious crimes and violations committed by Israel and its patron in Washington can be prosecuted and perhaps resolved. For decades Washington has postured as a matchmaker between estranged parties. In reality, it has and continues to facilitate a rapist state to violate a victim, over and over again.

Palestine has every right to statehood. It is not the question of whether Palestine should be a state or not, but when? President Mahmoud Abbas appeared jubilant at the United Nations (UN) when he declared that this was the “last chance to save the two-state solution” with Israel. The Palestine bid got the support of 138 UN members, with 41 abstentions and nine against the bid. Palestine’s symbolic victory was celebrated with thousands of people thronging the city of Ramallah with cut outs of Abbas and Yasser Arafat. Abbas further declared in the UN “we will accept no less than the independence of the State of Palestine, with East Jerusalem as its capital, on all the Palestinian territory occupied in 1967.” However, the situation on the ground remained the same. On the other hand Israel declared the UN vote as a “piece of negative political theatre” that will “hurt peace.” President Obama’s idea during his first term of Palestinian statehood within a year still remains a non-starter and it received flak from Israel and its supporters in the US. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had openly expressed support for the Republican candidate Mitt Romney during the presidential elections which took place last month. 

The symbolic victory of Palestine at the UN was met by the Israeli announcement next day on 30 November of building another settlement consisting of 3,000 new housing units in the West Bank. Despite protests from the Palestinians, the Israeli government is determined to go ahead with the project. The project will likely create obstacles against communication between northern and southern parts of the West Bank. The point is: how does this symbolic victory will help Palestine in face of its apparent weakness before the might of the Israeli armed forces… While Mahmoud Abbas is an advocate of peaceful resolution of the conflict, he could not achieve much due to lack of support from the Hamas, and also from the intransigence of the Israeli government. Israel is afraid that the Palestinian Authority may use its newly gained status to draw Israel into International Criminal Court, which will further flare up the conflict and bring it into international arena. The lack of international support to Palestine in terms of diplomatic engagements towards a two-state solution has further compounded the situation. 

The Middle East conflict has its wider layers, not only confined to Israel and Palestine. Since its creation in 1948, Israel suffers from this security dilemma and construes Arab world its enemy. The war of 1967 further polarized the relations. Some of the countries in the region do not recognize the Israeli state, further abetting the security complex of Israel. But that in no way justifies violence in the region, and Israel’s enlarging settlements in West Bank. The building of settlements by Israel is not under the purview of international law. The ideal scenario of two-state solution is far receding from reality with these developments. Mahmoud Abbas, considered to be a moderate is marginalized by the extremist Hamas. This lack of unity among Palestinian leaders makes their bargaining position before Israel weak. The violence last month killing more than hundred people in Gaza did not add anything to the conflict discourse in the region, except death and destruction. Diplomatically Egypt could reassert its regional balancer role with the US in declaring a ceasefire, but on the ground the conflict remained the same or rather further protracted. 

The Middle East quartet comprising UN, EU, Russia, and the US have so far could not evolve a common agenda on the Middle East. Two of the players Russia and the US took different positions during the Palestinian bid in the UN. While Russia and France supported the bid, the US opposed it, while the UK abstained from the voting. The lack of cooperation among the international players has made the Middle East a crucible of power politics. The rigidity of positions and violence persist, with the territory under the control of Palestine particularly in the West Bank getting shrunk with passing years. Though the symbolic victory at the UN may bring some respite to Abbas and aid him in asserting his authority, he is increasingly viewed as dovish, and his difference with Hamas is reiterated by Israel as his inefficiency to represent the whole Palestinians. 

Unless crucial supporters of Israel particularly the US exert requisite pressure and pool diplomatic resources for a long term solution of the conflict, the mayhem in the Middle East will likely to continue. The emerging powers like Russia and China can also play a positive role to bring peace in the region. With the rise of BRICS players, it may be possible that the conflict will witness more involvement of international players in the region. Without systematic and time-bound diplomatic intervention from international players, the two-state solution will not likely to be realized in near future. The victory of Palestine may restore some legitimacy to Abbas before the Palestinian people in West Bank. But unless Palestine and Israel come together, with the cooperation from major players including the Quartet and perhaps BRICS, and also regional players like Egypt, a solution to the Middle East conflict does not appear in horizon in near future. 

However, the issue has become more contentious and subject to conflicting interpretations due to global changes such as the transformations that took place in Arab countries this year, the apparent stalling of the peace process between Palestine and Israel, and also the domestic politics in the US which has witnessed heated debates at home prior to elections. The Arab Spring that finally led to toppling of dictators in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya with bottom-up movements in these countries and changing political discourse in other countries too had its impact in Palestine. Though Israel-Palestine conflict may be older than the discontents in other Arab nations and subsequent upheaval, the developments have seen increasing isolation of Israel in Arab and beyond. The stand-off between Israel and Turkey aftermath the Gaza incident last year, the increasing isolation of Israel from Arab neighbors, and also the rigid positions by the current regime of Israel have motivated the Palestinians to seek solution beyond the stalled peace process. In May this year, Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu had told the US Congress that Palestinian statehood respecting 1967 border cannot be an option to resolve the contentious issues. He called the idea ‘unrealistic’ and ‘indefensible’ as almost half a million Israelis live in more than 200 settlements and outposts in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Netanyahu and his more hard line Foreign Minister, Avigdor Lieberman have opposed the idea of Palestinian statehood, at least in the present juncture, which has been viewed by Palestinians as denial of their basic rights. The Arab Spring might have infused hope in the mind of Palestinians that the wind of transformation and change will sweep from Egypt to Palestine, and Palestinian will emerge as a new state.

Barack Obama’s foreign policy particularly in the context of Middle East cannot be delinked from domestic politics in the US. It was Obama who pledged a Palestinian state within twelve months last September, which could have been achieved through bilateral negotiation process with the support of major players like the Middle East Quartet comprising the UN, EU, Russia and the US. The last one year witnessed a troubled phase in the peace process as Obama could not sail much to broker peace mainly due to strong lobbies in Washington. Obama who stakes claim for another term may not risk losing the game. One of the Republican members, Texas Governor Rick Perry, likely to challenge Obama in presidential elections, has called the Obama policy towards Middle East as ‘naive, arrogant, misguided and dangerous.’ Netyanahu during his visit to US few months back, while speaking at the US Congress, openly challenged Obama policy by stating that the two-state formula is not solution of the crisis. Hence, while Obama spoke at the 66^th session of UN General Assembly, which opened on 21 September, his tone appeared to betray his intent. It has been widely reported that at present the US will not risk supporting Palestinian statehood idea, as it will severely compromise Obama’s chances of winning next elections. Abbas’s speech at the UN reflected the desperation of Palestinians, when he observed that Palestinians had entered into negotiations with Israel last year ready with documents, papers and proposals, but the talks had broken down within weeks.

Israel’s concerns are understandable in views of tumultuous history of its existence since last sixty and odd years. Some of countries in the region have not recognized Israel, and openly threatened to wipe it out from the map. The 1967 war, which ultimately helped Israel to occupy parts of territory of Palestine in Gaza and East Jerusalem, has increased the constituency of fear in Israel and sharpened its aggressiveness. While the Fatah Party, led by Mahmoud Abbas has adopted a moderate approach towards the resolution of the crisis, other parties like Hamas have taken a hard line extremist position. Addressing Friday prayers in Gaza on 23 September, the day Abbas submitted Palestinian application to UN for statehood, the Hamas leader and Prime Minister, Ismail Haniya told the people that the UN membership bid was a mistake because the “Palestinian people do not beg for a state,” because the state has to be ‘snatched from the Zionist occupation, not the United Nations.’ Such hard line statements further complicate the already complex situation, and strengthen hard line constituency in Israel. The Israeli hard liners too have contributed to the stagnation in the peace process. In the past, moderate leaders in Israel have been sidelines or killed. The killing of Yitzhak Rabin, a moderate leader and prime minister, in 1995 is a case in point. It is mistrust swelled by years of animosity and hatred that seem to have further complicated prospects of a peaceful resolution of Israel-Palestine conflict.

There is also a perception divergence in the context of Palestinian statehood. While Palestine argues that statehood is the beginning of a comprehensive peace process, as it will provide Palestine the status of an equal party, Israel argues that the peace process is the mechanism which can lead to the solution of the conflict and confer on Palestine the status of statehood. The recognition of Palestine as it existed prior to 1967 war as 194^th member of the UN will confer many advantages on Palestine. The UN subsequent to the war of 1967 had passed the resolution 242 to the effect that Israel should return all the territory of Palestine occupied during the war. The matter is further complicated as Israel has already established settlements in these areas, with Israeli citizen inhabiting these settlements. Though mutually agreed land swaps have been discussed between the two rivals, they have not yet worked out. With the recognition as a new state, Palestine with its increasing clout (currently it has observer status) can appeal to the UN and other mechanisms for the return of its territory. It can, even if it is granted the status of a non-member state, initiate proceedings against Israel in international bodies like International Criminal Court. These are the factors which have raised apprehensions in the mind of Israeli leaders.

Can the Palestinian bid for a new member state of the UN will be fulfilled in the current session of the international body? It is really a complicated issue. However, despite its complicated nature, it appears that the members of the UN have largely expressed support to the Palestine demand. If the demand gets two third members support at the General Assembly, and nine out of fifteen members support in the Security Council, then Palestine will add its name to the comity of nations at the UN. The UN debates will likely witness deep polarization, with countries like BRIC group taking a similar position. Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh has already declared India’s support for Palestine’s candidature for statehood. Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Hong Lei has stated, “China understands, respects and supports Palestine's bid for UN membership.” Similarly, Russia has adopted a favourable approach to the Palestine issue. As formulated by Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Russia ‘intends to vote in favor of recognizing Palestine as an independent state in the United Nations but would prefer this issue to be solved through consensus.’

The ideal situation as envisaged by the Middle East Quartet will be the emergence of Palestine as a new nation state on the basis of mutual understanding, deliberations and cooperation between Palestine and Israel with support of the international community including the UN. Emergence of a Palestine state amidst strong opposition from Israel and its allies may fulfill the legitimate Palestinian aspirations, but it may not likely usher permanent peace in the Middle East. The complex issues demand more intense cooperation between the two rivals, as well as between international players including Middle East Quartet and also BRIC towards an amicable resolution of the Middle East crisis.