Meeting at the UN
The tripartite meeting that took place between US President Barack Obama, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, and Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is an example of constructive flexibility on the part of all sides involved. This is an essential attitude and prerequisite for negotiations to be conducted.
The Obama administration shifted from a previous hardened position of Israel having to freeze all settlements before negotiations were to be conducted between Israel and the Palestinians. American officials intended to stop not just residential building for Israelis in the West Bank but even in eastern Jerusalem, a territorial legally part of Israel for nearly 30 years.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton launched the initiative on May 27, announcing that the president of the United States “wants to see a stop to settlements – not some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions,” adding for good measure, “And we intend to press that point.” On June 4, Obama added: “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements…. It is time for these settlements to stop.” A day later, he reiterated that “settlements are an impediment to peace.” On June 17, Hilary Clinton repeated: “We want to see a stop to the settlements.”
This in turn hardened the position of the Palestinians that they were unwilling to talk with the Israelis unless Israel was to freeze settlement growth. Abbas responded by saying, “The Americans are the leaders of the world…. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements.” This was not previously the stance of the Palestinians who had never made negotiations that they had held with the Israelis contingent upon the cessation of settlement growth.
The Israelis in turn had also significantly slowed construction activities in settlements and are considering future steps of curbing settlement growth. Thus prompting President Obama to declare that Israel, “has discussed important steps to restrain settlement activity.” Jonathan Freedland has commented in the Guardian, that “Obama’s friends worry that he has (in the past) lost face in a region where face matters.” For this reason this flexibility on all sides is a coup for the Obama administration enabling the U.S. to regain its stature in the Middle East.
Abbas should be commended for his continued flexibility as the Palestinian Authority agreed in Geneva in the beginning of October to defer a vote in the United Nations Human Rights Council on a resolution that would have condemned Israel’s failure to cooperate with a U.N. war crimes investigation led by South African jurist Richard Goldstone. The vote in the United Nations Human Rights Council would also have forwarded the Goldstone report to the UN Security Council. This has placed Abbas under considerable pressure from Hamas of letting down his people by being subjected to U.S. pressure and averting pressure that would be placed on Israel for its military offensive in Gaza. This may even impact upon Fatah’s electoral prospects negatively.
Furthermore, heightened engagement on the part of the Obama administration to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict enables the U.S. to more effectively put together a coalition of the international community that will effectively counter the Iranian threat. Currently European states as well as Arab states are united in their realization of the nature of the nuclear threat that Iran poses. Continued flexibility on the part of all the parties involved will lead to Obama’s vision that was expressed in the UN General Assembly, “two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish State of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people.”
