Hello Congressman Hoyer – Good Bye Peace Process

According to Steny Hoyer, a powerful US Democrat and ally of Barack Obama, there is a difference between Settlements in the West Bank and settlements in and around Jerusalem. The difference, he said, grew out of his belief that major settlement blocks would not be moving and that Jerusalem would remain a united city – presumably under Israel’s control.

…and just like that, the beliefs in a real peace process with a credible American broker died…

Congressman Hoyer may not have meant to do that however; so Palestine Monitor hopes to explain why loose lips can sink peace processes, as well as ships.

1. The Meaning of Final Status Israelis and Palestinians are tirelessly working over a solution to what are known as the ‘final status issues’. Both sides have a different view of how the outcome of each of these issues should be, and thus they are awaiting a viable peace process so as to settle these once and for all. Water, Refugees, Borders, Prisoners, Settlements and of course Jerusalem are the issues I refer to.

An administration interested in looking credible and unbiased should not decide any of these issues prior to the parties sitting down. The obvious result of doing so is that one side (in this case the Palestinians) feels shorted, jeopardizing the viability of peace. Simply staying on message,

‘Jerusalem is a final status issues to be decided in a peace agreement by Israelis and Palestinians.’

is a good idea. Both sides remain engaged and the foreign policy of the US does not look so confused. Instead of doing so, you have publicly ‘lame ducked’ President Obama in the region, by making him look like a weak push-over. These statements were far more damaging than the recent Republican visit and celebration in an illegal settlement.

2. Settlements Mr. Hoyer may have felt a certain need to respond to the Israeli perception of being ‘squeezed too hard on settlements’, while the Palestinians were expected to ‘do nothing’ – except remain under a brutal military occupation.

Settlements, after all, are a final status issue. What is the administration doing sticking their head into it?

The President had built credibility by finally taking a stand on settlements while not overstepping into the realm of final status. By calling for a freeze, rather than an evacuation, the fate of the settlements is left to negotiation. Hope for the settlers that the issue would at least be decided in part by their own governments was preserved. Besides minor skirmishes, the ‘freeze’ Obama did not tear Israel into two – far from it in fact.

On the Palestinian side, the freeze was not a ‘victory’. Instead it was a hint that maybe, just maybe, they would walk into a negotiation, rather than crawl into a pummeling. They could finally have a chance to look at their tired constituents and say:

We did not get rid of the settlements folks, but at least there will be no more ‘facts on the ground’ before we reach the next negotiations

The idea that one part of the land occupied in 1967 is more ‘un-occupied’ than another is very dangerous to US credibility and the prospects for peace. The areas that they are speaking of, the settlement blocks surrounding Jerusalem, have grown into large cities, some in matter of years. This message only encourages Israel to create more facts. After all, the more ‘built up’ a settlement is, the more legitimate it is.

Israel is planning on building over 3200 housing units in the heart of the West Bank so that it can connect a far flung settlement with those encircling Jerusalem. They will do so now in earnest upon hearing Mr. Hoyer’s endorsement. Meanwhile, your President’s ‘peace train’, indeed his whole Middle East policy is cut in two – just like the West Bank and prospects for a viable Palestinian State.

3. Jerusalem united under Israel. It would be cliché to begin discussing the importance of Jerusalem to Palestinians and Israelis. It would be more helpful to discuss the hundreds, if not thousands, of different solutions that have been developed by negotiators on the first and second tracks. Congressman Hoyer, representing the party of the US President decided to publicly endorse one of the only two positions that will definitely not work.

Hope, something that has actually been slightly tangible in Palestine over the last six months, deflated with those words. Even the ‘highly publicized, but hardly felt’ economic boom in the West Bank will not help. The people here are looking for freedom, not improved access to hand-outs and economic projects. All of these advances will crumble under accumulating rage between occupied and occupier.

The President appeared to understand that Jerusalem was not just a Palestinian ‘bluff’, but something vital to their identity, economy and sense of justice. Surrendering it, rather having it surrendered for you by the US, is not the way to arrange a credible peace process.

Sincerely,

Palestine Monitor

PS. In regards to Mr Hoyer’s demand that Israel be recognized as a Jewish State prior to negotiations, thus surrendering the Right of Return, Palestine Monitor would like to suggest something. Next time a right-wing nut job in the US tries to hang the Ten Commandments from the front door of the White House or Congress, let him. This way US foreign and domestic policies will align…