Hijab: The Wishful and the Realistic
Arabs like to be liked. This perfectly human emotion is magnified because Arabs think (for good reason) that the West has misrepresented them for years. So when a Western leader shows some sympathy, many Arabs respond with an idealistic view of what that leader will do.
This gives Hillary Clinton an advantage during her upcoming visit to the region: People remember that she once spoke of a future Palestinian state, and she warmly embraced the wife of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. And she represents a US president who has spoken of Palestinian suffering and who had Palestinian friends before his presidential campaign took off.
The region’s wishful thinkers believe deep down that these leaders like the Arabs; and that these leaders have to pretend to like Israel so much because the Zionist lobby controls America.
But now that Obama and Clinton are in power, this thinking goes, while they will still pay lip service to Israel, they will at last be fair-handed in resolving the conflict.
Of course, many Arabs know this is not how states conduct their affairs. Like all other states, the United States acts to protect its national security. The evidence? Even an administration as pro-Israel as that of George W. Bush was ruthless when Israel in 2005 violated restrictions on sharing US technology by selling drones to China. The Bush administration not only insisted that the agreement be cancelled but they suspended cooperation on arms projects for months in spite of Israeli apologies and pleas.
But why did the Bush administration let Israel have a free hand when it came to the Arab-Israeli conflict, the wishful thinkers will ask? By contrast to the arms deal — which involved the powerful and lucrative US military industry and its competition with China — the Bush team did not see resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict as important enough to merit taking on the Zionist lobby.
There are growing indications that the Obama Administration sees a two-state solution as important to US national security. This won’t be because American leaders are now free to admit they like Arabs, but because of the way they now define their national security interests.
The Obama Administration appears to have harkened to the many seasoned diplomats who argue that the United States cannot afford the anti-Americanism that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict breeds throughout the world — some of which translates into terrorism. The conflict makes life difficult for US allies and strengthens opponents — like Iran. The region is a tinderbox that explodes at frequent intervals with devastating impact on the people who live there — and the window for a two-state solution has almost shut.
While the Administration remains committed to Israel’s security, it appears to be fast-tracking a resolution, betting that enough people in the United States believe this would also be in Israel’s interests. The lightening speed with which special envoy George Mitchell received his appointment was the start. Now, Clinton is visiting the region for the donor conference on Gaza; Mitchell is already there. Mitchell is said to want to recommend tying US military aid for Israel to a settlement freeze, while Clinton is unhappy about the slow pace of humanitarian relief to Gaza.
And former US negotiator Dennis Ross, seen by many as too pro-Israel, has been sidelined. After weeks of waiting for a significant appointment, he has just become Clinton’s advisor for the Gulf and Southwest Asia. At the State Department briefing the next day, the Washington press corps had a field day. Why, they asked the hapless spokesman, was the announcement of the Ross appointment made at 9pm? What, in fact, is Southwest Asia? What is Ross in charge of, exactly?
Against this background, Israel is worried it will be pushed to give up land for peace. Is this good news for Palestinians and Arabs? That depends on how they position themselves. The United States will push for the maximum Israel can give to match the minimum Palestinians can accept.
The likely shape of things to come was set out in the Washington Post Op Ed that two former national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, wrote shortly after the US election. They presented four elements for a two state solution: the 1967 border with minor, agreed modifications; Jerusalem as “real home” to two capitals; a non-militarized Palestinian state; and “compensation in lieu of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.”
Israel and its Zionist allies are positioning themselves to make sure that Israel gives the minimum. The Palestinian Authority has indicated it is ready to accept the minimum, including a compromise about the right of return. If the Palestinian people disagree with the way the PA is representing their case, they will have to move fast to make a different case, or face a fait accompli. And no amount of wishful thinking will change that.
Nadia Hijab
Nadia Hijab is a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Palestine Studies in Washington D.C.
