This is perfect. You really can’t get much better than this. The Palestinians are blaming Obama for the lack of a peace agreement, instead of, say, their utter refusal to come to the table and discuss things.
Palestinian officials on Sunday criticized the United States for what one called “backpedaling” on demands that Israel stop settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, saying the Obama administration’s change of approach on the issue damaged the likelihood of a peace agreement.
“If America cannot get Israel to implement a settlement freeze, what chance do the Palestinians have of reaching agreement” on the even more complex set of issues involved in final peace talks, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat said in a written statement.
The thing I like best about all this is that they’re actually correct. It is Obama’s fault, and you can trace it to these exact words from the Cairo speech:
The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. (Applause.) This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop. (Applause.)
There’s a lesson in unintended consequences there. Barry Rubin says that Netanyahu has given Hillary Clinton more than Israel has ever offered regarding the cessation of settlements, but it’s still not enough for the Palestinians—and now Egypt and Jordan have climbed aboard the “absolutely no building, anywhere!” wagon and declared that the Palestinians are right not to negotiate without a complete freeze. But, as Barry Rubin points out:
In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement—often called the Oslo accord—in 1993, that’s 16 years ago—Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.
In effect, then, Obama has totally effed up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, by giving the Palestinians a demand that they could latch onto and use as an excuse to refuse so much as talking with Israel. Even the WaPo has noticed:
The comments represent what has been a shift in the dynamics since President Obama took office, with initial pressure on Israel giving way to apparent impatience over the refusal of Palestinian officials to resume peace talks in the absence of a settlement freeze.
The first months of Obama’s administration were marked by sharply worded demands that Israel stop building in both the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Palestinians consider the areas part of a future Palestinian state and say that a halt to settlements on Israel’s part would simply be fulfilling promises already made under previous international agreements.
You know, I think I may start taking back all the bad things I thought about Obama and the Cairo speech. Because clearly, it has shown the Palestinians’ duplicity to all and sundry, and exposed the so-called “moderate” states of Egypt and Jordan for the enablers of the rejectionist philosophy of Fatah and the PA. Even Barack Obama can’t keep ignoring who is truly at fault for lack of progress in the Middle East. Well, okay, he can—but people are going to start laughing at him when he blames Bush for the current impasse.
Update: And on cue, Clinton moderates her statement to please the outraged Palestinians and Arabs.
I can imagine the Palestinians’ dismay at realizing that there is a limit to how much ushing Obama is going to do–a lot but not all theyw ant–and thus they can’t simply sit back and wait for Obama to accomplish what the Palestinians want to dol. I am almost sympathetic.