Peace process depends on US

After Hillary Rodham Clinton's bombshell in Occupied Jerusalem over Washington's position on Jewish colonies in the Occupied Territories, and her attempt to set the record straight in Marrakesh on the eve of her meeting with Arab foreign ministers, the Arabs must address a fundamental question: How to define their relationship with the United States vis-à-vis the Palestine question?

The secretary of state may have misspoken when she said that colonies were an issue for negotiations and that Israel's offer to freeze "new" activities in the West Bank was "unprecedented". She later reiterated Washington's long-standing view of Israeli colonies as "illegal", adding that "we do not believe [colonies] are legitimate, we have said that repeatedly, and we have made that clear to the Israelis, the Arabs, the Palestinians and the world".

But the fact remains that US policy on the Middle East's most critical conflict is shifting. The integrity of US President Barack Obama's promise to Arabs and Muslims for a just conclusion to the Arab-Israeli conflict has been shaken.

It all boils down to basic questions: should peace talks resume while Israel is going ahead with plans to construct over 3,000 new units in West Bank colonies? And if the US considers Jewish colonies illegal, why is it now saying that they are a subject for negotiations? And what happened to Obama's call — no, make that demand — that Israel freezes all colony activities? And why is it that the onus is now on the Palestinians to accept calls to return to the negotiation table without preconditions at a time when Israel is launching a major colonisation scheme in the West Bank and East Occupied Jerusalem? And why is it that, in the final analysis, the US always sides with Israel?

Clinton has decided to intervene directly to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli impasse after George Mitchell, the administration's special envoy, had failed to change the positions of the two opposing parties. But she had clearly and unabashedly sided with one party, Israel, over a crucial point of contention in the mired peace talks.

The Palestinians cannot be expected to sit down and negotiate when large chunks of their future state are being colonised and annexed. After many years of negotiations they are realising that Israel is in no mood to give up territory or allow an independent Palestinian state to be created. The building of colonies is stark proof of Israeli intentions.

The US response to Israel's continued colonisation activities had never been decisive, except for the famous showdown between president George H.W. Bush and the Israeli government over loan guarantees. Historically, Washington had always considered the colonies illegal, but it had also described them as an obstacle to peace. Furthermore, Israel was never penalised for violating international law or for breaching the US position. In fact, since the Oslo process and beyond, successive Israeli governments had actively and deliberately sanctioned projects to expand existing colonies and create new ones.

While Israel pursued such policies, the US looked on and did nothing. For the Palestinians, the expansion and building of new of colonies meant only one thing; the undermining of the national aspiration for total liberation.

It is not Israel that the Arabs should be negotiating with but the US government. Today the US is the sole mediator, having neutralised the UN, the EU and Russia. It has taken it upon itself to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict and, more recently, reaffirmed its commitment to a two-state solution as the only path to ending Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories.

Stand up to Israel

But for this to materialise the US must face the inevitability of standing up to Israel on contentious issues such Occupied East Jerusalem and colonies. This is what the Obama administration has failed to do so far in its efforts to revive peace talks. In a potential showdown between Tel Aviv and Washington, the former is likely to win. The Obama administration has already backed down to avoid a confrontation, and allowed the right-wing government of Benjamin Netanyahu to lead. It is from this angle that we can explain Clinton's recent statements and the shift in US position.

It is not enough for Clinton to redress her statements in order to soak up Arab outrage. If the Obama administration is serious about resolving the Palestine-Israel conflict then it must demonstrate political will and prove its credibility. Clinton's retrospective explanations will simply not do.

This is why the Arabs must engage the United States, as the honest broker it proclaims itself to be, to state on record what its policies are and what it intends to do in the next few months. Pressuring the Palestinians to bow down and accept Israeli preconditions will not help save the ailing peace process.

Obama has promised a fresh start in relations between the Muslim world and the United States. Millions of Arabs and Muslims heeded his promise and he has inspired young people who are hoping for a new and fresh beginning. So far he has not honoured his promise.

The Palestine-Israel conflict remains the core of regional and international contention. The Arabs should ask the Obama administration for a clear mandate on this issue. Gaffes and retractions by his secretary of state will not help. He needs to come forward and enunciate a clear plan to end Palestinian suffering and stem Israeli ambitions. Will he do this?

Osama Al Sharif is a veteran journalist and political commentator based in Jordan.