by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Nov. 2, 2009
All Rights Reserved.

             Shifting rhetoric on Mideast peace, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton expressed approval for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s decision to show “restraint” in West Bank settlement development.  Calling Netanyahu’s move “unprecedented,” Hillary infuriated Palestinians, demanding she condemn any Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank.  Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected out-of-hand Clinton’s praise of Netanyahu’s new policy.  Abbas faces growing alienation in Ramallah and Gaza City, where the radical group Hamas wants no part of a Mideast peace.  Seizing Gaza June 14, 2007, Hamas President Ismail Haniyeh shows no interest in power-sharing with the more diplomacy-minded Abbas, whose Palestinian Authority has fallen into disrepute.  Hamas rejects any attempt by Abbas to call new elections, hoping to regain power.

            Conservative U.S. politicians can’t have it both ways:  Asking Obama to oppose Hamas and, at the same time, blaming Clinton for supporting Netanyahu.  President Barack Obama received his share of criticism condemning Israel’s West Bank settlement activity and siding with the Abbas and the Palestinian Authority.  Now that Clinton showed support for Israel, conservatives condemned her for scuttling Mideast peace efforts. Netanyahu and his ultra-conservative Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman feel no obligation to halt settlement construction, believing the West Bank is a legitimate Israeli spoil of the 1967, Six-Day War.  “What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraint on a policy of settlements . . . is unprecedented,” said Clinton antagonizing Abbas and Haniyeh.  Neither Palestinian faction wants an Israel settlement freeze to force reconciliation and new elections.

            Clinton’s change of direction reveals a subtle switch in U.S. foreign policy, realizing that Abbas may not survive the current impasse.  Abbas can’t get Hammas to agree on anything other than forcing new Gaza elections.  When the vote too place in 2007, Hamas came out on top.  Judging by recent Gaza polls, the vote would come out the same way.  That doesn’t serve U.S. interests, since former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice didn’t recognize the duly elected Hamas government.  “There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to fully realized,” said Hillary, puzzled why Abbas set unreasonable conditions for resuming Mideast peace talks.  Abbas has made a settlement freeze contingent on future negotiations.  He knows that if he softens his stance and resumes negotiating with Israel, he’ll likely lose any upcoming election to Hamas.

            Abbas’s position with the Palestinian people has never been on more shaky ground.  If elections were held today, he’s be trounced by Hamas, usurping whatever authority he now enjoys.  Gaza won’t come back to Abbas anytime soon.  Most Palestinians view Abbas as a U.S. puppet, forcing his currently tough stance.  “There can be no excuse for the continuation of settlements, which is really the main obstacle in the way of any credible peace process,” Abbas spokesman Nabil Abu Rideneh, responding to Hillary’s praise of Netanyahu.  Abbas has set untenable conditions because he doesn’t want to face the inevitable:  New Palestinian elections.  Fearing Hamas would takeover, it’s easier for Abbas to set impossible conditions.  Standing up to Netanyahu makes Abbas look like a tough little rooster, giving his feckless position more weight before the next Palestinian election.

            Abbas knows that Hamas won’t negotiate a return to power in Gaza anytime soon.  Agreeing to Israeli conditions would only weaken Abbas, seeking to lead the Palestinian people.  “Israel is not interested in stopping its settlement activities and the American administration didn’t succeed in convincing the Israeli government to stop these activities,” said Rideneh, playing hardball with the peace process.  Abbas knows that Hamas is a razor’s edge from declaring another “intifada,” or uprising against Israel.  Declaring war would divert attention away from the current Palestinian civil war, making a peace deal next to impossible.  No one knows whether Abbas would survive the next round of Palestinians elections.  U.S. officials know that there’s no real possibility of a Mideast peace before Abbas and Haniyeh resolve their differences on who leads Palestinians.

             Clinton got U.S. Mideast policy right that Israel can’t engage in unilateral diplomacy.  Insisting on a total settlement ban, Hamas wants nothing short of complete control off Gaza.  U.S. conservatives keep shifting positions, essentially opposing everything even when it’s more closely tied to Clinton or Obama.  “This is a non-starter,” said Ramallah’s chief peace negotiator Saeb Erekat.  “And that’s why it’s unlikely to restart negotiations,” playing hardball but having little ground to stand on.  Erekat knows that the Palestinian Authority is dangerously close to folding its tent.  Threatening to break-off negotiations buys Abbas more time, while Egypt attempts to resolve differences between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.  Clinton’s new support for Israel signals that there’s little hope for Mideeast peace.  Settlement freezes have nothing to do with resolving Palestinian’s civil war.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.