As expected, President Barack Obama's representatives, White House official Dennis Ross and Middle East envoy David Hale, returned to Washington empty-handed after efforts to prevent the Palestinians' unilateral declaration of statehood at the United Nations bore no fruit. One can assume that the American envoys were not especially surprised by this, since from the outset, the main goal of their visit was for the Palestinians to understand the grave nature of their refusal and the negative consequences it would have for their relations with the United States.
As I wrote here a few weeks ago, it is obvious that the only possible formula for renewing negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians would be a combination of what Obama said in his two speeches on the subject. One speech set out the basis for setting the future borders of the Palestinian state along the 1967 "borders" with additional "agreed upon land swaps." The second element lies in the details of a speech presented to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) in which Obama clarified his previous comments, and stated that the starting point for talks would not be the 1967 borders, but rather that the sides would hold negotiations on the outline of a new border. This latter version is the same formula that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton presented to the international Quartet.
The Palestinians outright rejected the proposal, while Israel accepted it, not withstanding certain reservations. It is possible to speculate about what caused the Obama administration, which we know does not always see eye to eye with Israel on various diplomatic issues, to behave with such positive determination. The fact is, however, that the administration has not really budged from its original position.
What the Americans today understand, unlike the Left in Israel who expresses its support for the Palestinians' unilateral declaration of statehood, is that the Palestinian Authority made this strategic decision in order not to enter into real negotiations with Israel. All of their diplomatic and political moves up until now stem from this avoidance behavior. The nature of negotiations is compromise and mutual concessions, including but not exclusive to refugees, Jerusalem and borders.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and his associates, like Yasser Arafat in his day, are not planning to go down in the Arab history books as the ones who were ready to compromise. Especially not when they believe that the detour they are taking at the United Nations will bring about the desired results. The Palestinians know that the Security Council will refuse to recognize the state they seek, even potentially without need for an American veto. Thus they decided on a move that can be characterized as the "Vatican option," meaning that the U.N. General Assembly, in which they have an automatic majority, grants them a new international, legal and diplomatic status. Instead of their current status as "observers," they will earn the same status as the Vatican, a "non-member observer state."
To the average person on the street, this would appear to be a semantic game; however, in actuality there is a multi-faceted, real-world difference here. The key word is, of course, "state." The moment this word appears in the title, all the rest becomes irrelevant. It is a "state," despite missing some of the characteristics of a normal state; first and foremost, sovereign control over its land. The Palestinian "state" could, for example, call for international agreements with other states, including security alliances; be elected as a full member of different international organizations; and gravest of all for Israel, it could join The International Court of Justice in The Hague and turn it into a theater for incessant claims against Israel, its soldiers and its citizens.
Moreover, even without an agreement between Fatah and Hamas, there is no doubt that Hamas and all the other radical Palestinian organizations will be fully present in the new "state," be it through actual presence in government institutions or "only" on the ground.
This state could become a terrorist enemy that will force Israel to act militarily and in other ways in order to cope with the security threats it constantly produces. Abbas claims that after the state is established, it will renew negotiations with Israel. This is transparent trickery, as the main topics that would have been discussed in negotiations, which were already so difficult, would be considered "water under the bridge" by then.
For some time now, Israel has been examining different ways to find a correct and realistic answer to the Palestinians' plans and the threats posed by them, if possible before "zero hour" at the U.N. arrives, as well as how to deal with the situation that may arise afterwards. In this same vein, the current close relationship with the United States and the coordination of Israel's and the U.S.'s positions, are a central and essential barrier in the face of the calamities on the way. And if someone still doesn't understand the supreme importance of Israel's connection to America, one just need think about the events in Cairo over the weekend.
