America’s contradictory approach to the Palestinian issue

Mehr News, International Group: The United States is one of the most important actors in the Palestinian-Zionist conflict and the peace process in the region in general. America’s declared policy towards this issue is to support the solution of two governments in the occupied territories centered on East Jerusalem and West Jerusalem. However, he vetoed it in the recent meeting of the Security Council, where the issue of full membership of the Palestinian government in the United Nations was put to a vote. This duality of opinion and action in the positions of America at this point is done in support of the occupying regime.

The approach of two governments in different American governments

The two-state solution has been advocated since the United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 181 on November 29, 1947. At the same time, such a solution to end the Palestinian conflict was presented in the United Nations resolution in 1974. This resolution demanded that the two sides form two governments together and within the borders agreed upon before 1967. In this regard, since the establishment of the occupying regime in 1948 and the subsequent occupation of a part of Palestine, Jordan, Egypt and Syria, America has always supported it. Therefore, a fundamental issue in the American foreign policy during the last half century is how to manage the conflict between the Arabs and the Zionist regime. The two-state approach has been a major axis of the American government’s policies, especially in the last two decades.

The Bush era

After getting to the White House, Bush tried to increase the amount of US activities to resolve the Palestinian conflict by presenting a road map. For this purpose, he pretended to be committed to the formation of an independent Palestinian state. At the same time, it took a long time for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state, which was foreseen in the road map, to be agreed upon by the world powers and the Arab countries. For this purpose, the Bush administration intended from the very beginning to force the Palestinian militant groups to accept the Zionist government. One of the most important methods for this purpose was to disarm these groups. According to American politicians, by disarming the Palestinian militant groups, including Hamas, they would be forced to accept the road map plan. The Bush administration also supported the withdrawal of the regime from the Gaza Strip, seeing it as a way to return to the road map process and achieve a two-state solution in such a way that the two governments live together in peace and security.

The Obama Era

During Barack Obama’s presidency, he initially tried to encourage the Palestinians by proposing that Tel Aviv halt settlement construction as a precondition for starting peace talks. who were willing to give concessions to the Zionist regime upon receiving an incentive, but then realized that not only would the desired result not be achieved, but it also put the Palestinians in a more difficult situation. After Tel Aviv did not accept Washington’s request to stop settlement construction in the West Bank, Obama was forced in 2010 to abandon his insistence on stopping settlement construction as a precondition for the start of peace talks, and this event strengthened the regime’s position. This issue strengthened Benjamin Netanyahu’s position in the occupied territories.

In May 2015, Obama called the two-state solution “absolutely vital”. These words of the American president were proposed after Netanyahu formed his coalition government and considering the composition of his cabinet ministers, the future of the agreement with Palestine to form an independent government did not seem clear. Obama stated that: “The United States still believes that Israel’s long-term security depends on an agreement on the recognition of the Palestinian state.” I know that in the newly formed government, there are those who do not accept this hypothesis, but this is my only option for now.

The Trump era

During the Trump era, despite the unlimited support of the regime and Trump’s historic actions in moving the embassy of this country to Jerusalem and the Abraham peace agreement in bringing the regime closer to the two The Arab countries of the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, but the two-state approach continued in American foreign policy. In his meeting with Netanyahu on January 28, 2020, Trump presented the plan known as the deal of the century and announced that this plan is based on a win-win solution and paves the way for the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. Peace needs compromise; But we don’t want to do anything to jeopardize Israel’s security. I did a lot for Israel; I moved our embassy to Jerusalem and recognized the Golan Heights as part of Israel.

Biden era

The declared policy of the Joe Biden government is also the basis for the formation of an independent Palestinian state in the occupied territories; But it does not officially recognize an independent state of Palestine. However, if Trump was with Netanyahu due to his high support for the Zionist regime, Biden is facing Netanyahu’s strong barrier due to the Gaza war. Netanyahu has officially announced that he is opposed to the formation of an independent Palestinian state after the end of the Gaza war and has informed the United States of his opposition. Apart from this, Bibi claims that all lands west of the Jordan River should be under the security control of Israel.

Why the United States vetoed the full membership resolution of Palestine

By not supporting the issuance of resolutions in the Security Council on the Palestinian conflict, the United States is trying to manage it for its own interests. Among others, we can refer to the resolution 1397 in 2002, in which the Security Council explicitly demanded to pursue the solution of forming two independent governments. This resolution was approved by the Security Council with 14 votes in favor. The representative of the United States announced in the recent meeting of the Security Council that “Palestinian membership will only take place through direct negotiations with Israel and under the support of the United States.” There are two important points in this phrase:

Direct negotiations or attempts to eliminate Hamas

The United States has long insisted that the formation of a Palestinian state should be achieved through direct negotiations between the regime and the Palestinian Authority, which oversees parts of the occupied West Bank to happen. In a Twitter message on February 16, 2024, after a telephone conversation with Biden, Netanyahu repeated the same position and said: “Israel rejects international orders regarding a permanent agreement with the Palestinians, such an agreement can only be reached through direct negotiations between the parties and It will be achieved without preconditions. Israel will continue to oppose the recognition of Palestine. “If we do that, we will give a huge reward to the unprecedented terrorism that was unleashed on October 7, and it will prevent any future peace agreement.” However, it seems that what America calls direct negotiations, mostly includes the return of self-governing organizations and efforts to eliminate Hamas. Washington is trying to subordinate the government of Gaza to the Palestinian Authority and return the situation of this region to before June 2007.

Trying to redo the deal of the century

Since the beginning of the administration, especially in the last six months of the Gaza war, the Biden administration has pretended to be designing a policy to implement a two-state approach and increase pressure in this The context is the Zionist regime. The fact that the United States believes that the Palestinian-Zionist negotiations for Palestinian membership should be supported by the United States, shows that Biden is still willing to continue the framework of the century deal after the end of the Gaza war. Before the Al-Aqsa storm operation, Biden planned to lead Saudi Arabia to official relations with the Zionist regime by 2024 in exchange for a defense treaty with the United States.

At the same time, Palestinian politicians are skeptical of American policies. Mustafa Barghouti, Secretary General of the Palestinian National Initiative Party, believes that “the American approach has no meaning unless it is related to three things: the end of Israel’s occupation, the removal of its settlements in the occupied West Bank, and an agreement on what the borders of the Palestinian state will be.” Ahmed Tibi, a Palestinian politician in the Israeli parliament and a former adviser to Yasser Arafat, also believes that “Biden can and should stop the war, but he is doing something else. He gives Israel ammunition to continue the war”.

Result

The United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, is pursuing two major goals by voting against the resolution of Palestine’s permanent membership in the United Nations. First, direct negotiations or attempts to eliminate Hamas. The United States has made the acceptance of Palestine’s permanent membership subject to direct negotiations between the Palestinian parties and the Zionist regime, and in this way, it is trying to remove Hamas from the political process by putting the self-governing organization at the center of gravity. Second, America wants the negotiations between the two sides to be conducted under the supervision of this country, probably this means re-presenting plans such as the deal of the century in the post-war period.

Sajad Moradi Kalardeh, researcher of international relations