Last week, an Emirati newspaper reported on what it claimed is a leaked State Department memo outlining a proposal for how Washington should approach the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The memo—which is a proposal, not a formal statement of policy—contends that the Biden administration should return to pressing for a two-state solution, and that it should pursue a “reset” of its relations with the Palestinian Authority (PA). The latter would entail renewing financial support and patching up differences that emerged during the Trump administration. Elliott Abrams questions the wisdom of this argument:
As of this date, Palestinian legislative elections are scheduled for May 22, and presidential elections for July 31. Because no elections have been held since 2006, it is quite possible that these elections too will be postponed. That uncertainty as to whether there will be elections, and who will win them if they are held, suggests that this “reset” is a bit premature. “Resetting the U.S. relationship with the Palestinian . . . leadership” will be extremely difficult if that leadership includes Hamas, as it well may. Indeed, in talks in Cairo in the past week, Fatah and Hamas have discussed a joint electoral list—a maneuver that would guarantee a Hamas role in the PA government, as well as deny the Palestinian people a meaningful electoral contest.
The memo does not address, as far as I am aware, the huge gap between the Palestinian people and the corrupt and increasingly repressive “leadership” of the PA, PLO, and Hamas, but getting along better with that leadership than the Trump administration did does not necessarily benefit the Palestinian people—nor will they necessarily like it. [Indeed], logic might suggest that we hold off on this “reset” . . . unless and until we can get the PA to end its increasingly thuggish behavior.
The memo argues for “rolling back certain steps by the prior administration that bring into question our commitment or pose real barriers to a two-state solution, such as country-of-origin labelling.” It is plain silly to think that such product labelling is actually a barrier to a two-state solution. What’s more striking is that on this subject there is no new thinking. There is simply a return to position papers from the Obama administration, and to the very old tradition of seeking smooth relations with the PA leadership no matter how bad its treatment of its own people.
Read more on Pressure Points: https://www.cfr.org/blog/new-or-old-biden-policy-israeli-palestinian-conflict