By The Editors
Updated Nov. 6, 6 p.m.: Fawaz A. Gerges has added a comment, pointing out how disillusioned Arabs are with the Obama administration and the president's "empty rhetoric." Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, announced on Thursday that he would not seek re-election in a presidential vote he has called for in January. While he said that this was not a "maneuver," some of his aides have said that his decision is part of a strategy to persuade President Obama to support a full peace plan for an independent Palestinian state. What's behind this unexpected announcement? If Mr. Abbas steps down, does this mean the peace negotiations between the Israelis and the Palestinians are over?
An Act of Desperation
Although Mahmoud Abbas said his decision to not stand for re-election is not a negotiating tactic, it is clearly a move aimed at the Americans whom, in his televised speech, he accused of "favoring the Israeli position." Mr. Abbas wants assurances from President Obama that the peace process is on track, and that Washington is still committed to helping bring about a viable and an independent Palestinian state. The Palestinian leadership was shocked and disappointed when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her recent visit to Jerusalem heaped praise on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's offer to curb some settlement construction in the West Bank. They were still counting on President Obama's initial demand to freeze all settlement construction. Moreover, Mr. Abbas was deeply annoyed when Mrs. Clinton joined Israeli calls demanding that he return to the negotiating table without preconditions. And he was further upset by Mr. Netanyahu who, bolstered by Mrs. Clinton's backing, urged the Palestinians to "come to their senses" and restart peace talks without insisting on a settlement freeze. This new stance by the U.S. was the final straw for Mr. Abbas. Even if he swallows his pride and rescinds the precondition to freeze settlements and returns to negotiations, he does so at his own peril, risking a revolt from within his ruling party, Fatah, and a potent challenge from radical Hamas. The Islamist movement has publicly stressed that Mr. Abbas does not speak for or represent the Palestinians and cannot sign any peace agreement without a public mandate. In the last election, Hamas won a comfortable parliamentary majority and trumped Fatah. Any hint of compromise on settlements could weaken Mr. Abbas and his Palestinian Authority further in a run-up to elections he has scheduled for January. Although Mr. Abbas's public approval ratings have improved slightly in the past year because of Hamas's military blunders and political recklessness, he was crippled politically by the U.S. after he was persuaded to withdraw support for a United Nations report that accused Israel of war crimes during its winter offensive in Gaza. Facing unprecedented public uproar from within his own party, Mr. Abbas had to back down. (He was also severely criticized at home after he attended a tripartite summit with President Obama and Mr. Netanyahu in September and returned empty-handed.) Mahmoud Abbas's threat to resign is his last card. He has run out of options. Will the Obama administration come to his rescue?
Disappointed with Obama: Fawaz A. Gerges on how Mahmoud Abbas's hopes for U.S. involvement in the peace process have been shattered.
Despite Mrs. Clinton's efforts to soften the impact of her comments from Jerusalem, that new shift has damaged the administration's credibility and authority in the region. The lesson learned by Arabs and Israelis alike is that President Obama does not possess the political will to push forward his vision of a two-state solution. His capitulation on settlements sends the wrong message to both camps and emboldens them to resist making the necessary concessions for a breakthrough. Having won the first round on settlements, Mr. Netanyahu will no longer take President Obama's vision of peace seriously. His allies have already hailed President Obama's retreat as a diplomatic victory. Danny Ayalon, the deputy foreign minister, said that Israel's policy of resisting U.S. pressure had paid off, while his cabinet colleague Daniel Hershkowitz declared: "The U.S. administration understands what we have always said – that the real obstacle to negotiations are the Palestinians." In the first six months of his administration, President Obama raised the expectations among Muslims of a real change in American policy and buoyed Palestinian hopes that he would deliver them their long-expected independent state. Those hopes are rapidly fading, replaced by disillusionment and cynicism. More and more voices say that President Obama is no different from his predecessors, and that all he offers is empty rhetoric. The chorus of Palestinian and Arab protests and disappointment must be set against promises made and high expectations set by the new president in the first six month in office. Mrs. Clinton's comments from Jerusalem hit a raw nerve and shattered widely held perceptions among the pro-Western Palestinian and Arab ruling elite, particularly Mr. Abbas, that unlike his predecessor, President Obama is genuine about helping the Palestinians establish a state of their own. In contrast to the furor in pro-Western Arab capitals, the radical camp - Iran, Syria and their local allies (Hamas and Hezbollah) - maintained sweet silence. "The Arab and Muslim people know that the U.S. position is biased," said Mohammad Nazzal, a top member of Hamas' exiled leadership in Syria.