On Monday January 22, barely two days after Clinton left the
office of the U.S. Presidency, the Palestinian Authority,
through its Palestinian Media Center, issued a memo
discussing the role of the Clinton administration in Middle
East peace talks. Following are excerpts from that memo:
No third party has been as involved and influential in the
Palestinian-Israeli peace process over the last seven years
as the United States and, in particular, its special Middle
East coordinator, Dennis Ross. In view of the United States'
inability to facilitate the realization by Palestinians and
Israelis of a just and lasting peace in accordance with
Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 and other sources
of international law, it seems prudent, at the close of the
Clinton administration, to assess U.S. involvement and to
identify some of the reasons the United States' involvement
has not yielded better results.
Under U.S. supervision, the Palestinian-Israeli "peace
process" has become a goal in and of itself. A false sense
of normalcy has been created because of the on-going process
of negotiations. The lack of visible resistance to Israeli
occupation from the Palestinian side, except for temporary
flare-ups, and Israel's ability to continue negotiations
while continuing to build settlements in occupied
Palestinian territory, has created the false impression that
the "process" of achieving peace could substitute for peace
itself.
Thus, the difficult substantial issues at the core of the
conflict, including acceptance that Israel's occupation of
Arab territory it conquered in the 1967 Israeli-Arab War is
illegal, have been constantly deflected in order to maintain
talks without requiring Israel to face up to its
obligations.
In fact, the United States advocacy of "constructive
ambiguity" has had disastrous consequences for the peace
process. Both parties to the conflict have mistakenly
assumed at different times that either the Israelis had
accepted to end the occupation or that the Palestinians had
agreed to forgo some of their fundamental rights as a result
of vaguely worded agreements. . . .
Unfortunately, the U.S. emphasis on process over substance
has led the domestic constituencies of many governments in
the region to conclude that the peace process was only a
mirage designed to trick their governments into prematurely
establishing economic ties that would help Israel break out
of its regional isolation. This has had the added
repercussion of promoting not only anti-Israeli sentiment in
countries that have established economic ties with Israel,
but has also promoted anti-American sentiment in all
countries of the region, as demonstrated by the grass-roots
popular boycott of American products in many states. . .
.
Unfortunately, over the last seven years in particular, the
U.S. has become increasingly identified with Israeli
ideological assumptions. . . . The result has been that
while Israel's security, including the security of its
occupation forces, have been the focus of each agreement,
the quality of life of Palestinians has continued to
decline. The dichotomy between the comfort of Israelis,
including those occupying Palestinian land in settlements
with green lawns and swimming pools, and the poverty and
misery of Palestinians, has only further inflamed an already
volatile situation. . . .
A comprehensive peace agreement between Palestinians and
Israelis must not only be considered a valuable photo
opportunity. . . . There is much the United States can
contribute to encouraging justice, peace and stability in
the Middle East, but only if it can learn from the mistakes
and failures of the last seven years. There remains much at
stake, and for every day that the Israeli occupation
continues and settlements continue to expand, peace becomes
that much harder to achieve.
