By Bassam Abu Sharif

On March 26 of this year the Palestinian Prime Minister, Salam Fayyad, reminded Mr. Gates, the U.S. defense minister, of the need for the U.S. to fulfill its promises to the Palestinians. One promise was for the U.S`s to recognize the independence of Palestinians on a sovereign state. This state was to be established in the 1967 occupied areas of the West Bank and Gaza, (including east Jerusalem), after ending the Israeli occupation.


Is this realistic? Will the U.S. fulfill its commitment to the Palestinians?

This looks questionable after having a close look at the developments within the peace process in the Middle East. To start with, one should keep in mind the consecutive retreats of Washington in facing Israel`s defiant attitude to the efforts to push the peace process forward. The latest of these efforts was to ignore the American Veto against the blatantly illegal Israeli expropriation of Palestinian land and the construction of new settlements which are protected by Israeli border guards and army.


The White House looks crippled when it comes to Israel`s arrogant refusal to comply with U.N. resolutions especially resolutions 242 and 338 of the U.N. Security Council. These clearly forbid Israel from usurping Palestinian land, building colonies in the 1967 occupied areas or changing the demographic nature of East Jerusalem.

Israeli Governments, since the assassination of Isaac Rabin, have been reluctant to go ahead implementing the signed agreements that would put an end to occupation of Palestine in stages.

In fact, these governments were acting with a detrimental attitude to the achievement of peace. This shows clearly that none of these governments look the two state solution seriously.

During a reception held in Tel Aviv at The Shimon Peres Peace Center, Mr. Peres said to me: “It seems that your friend (he meant Arafat) is serious about having an independent state.” When I said: "Of course!" he looked at me and said: “We will never take that seriously. It is autonomy that we thought of."

I believe Mr. Peres. All Israeli governments are committed to Ben Gurion’s original plan: Israel … from sea to River Jordan … a Jewish state.

After 22 years, the agreements signed in Washington and guaranteed by the U.S. and the Europe Union were, where the U.S. were involved, not implemented. They were hampered, and frozen bluntly by Israel since Benjamin Netanyahu`s first premiership. The only plans Israeli governments were busy with were those of the expansion and Judaisation of East Jerusalem as well as creating a racist de facto pure Jewish state over historical Palestine (from sea to River Jordan). All this was carried out without any Israeli worry of American or European opposition or pressure.


Even the latest ideas of Benjamin Natenyahu (P.M of Israel) of a temporary autonomous entity for the Palestinians or small human enclaves in the West Bank - under the security control of the Israeli army of these islands and the borders -was not argued by the U.S.

Mitchell, the ex-senator who worked out the peace agreement in Ireland, didn’t fail to step forward with the peace process in the Middle East. George Mitchell who started his mission in the M.E. optimistically, distributing smiles of a successful negotiator was struck by the attitude of the Israeli Government. They slapped back at him on expansion, building new settlements on confiscated Palestinian land, constructing the separation wall and Judaising Jerusalem.

What added to Mitchell`s dismay was the ridiculous attitude of the White House, the State Department and the Pentagon. A few months ago the walls and halls of the Cosmos Club in Washington D.C. echoed words of dispute amongst these American power centers on the Middle East peace process. This started with the appointment of the veteran negotiator Dennis Ross as envoy to the Middle East.

To the astonishment of George Mitchell (“The Envoy”), whispers spread through the powerful lobbies of the American capital. These murmurs suggested that the appointment of Dennis Ross was the last straw and would push Mitchell to resign*.

Ross is known for neither meeting nor negotiating with Palestinians, so his appointment was justified as a friend of the Israelis - a friend who can convince Benjamin Natenyahu of accepting new American ideas on Peace in the M.E. Dennis Ross is known in Washington to be the best advocate of Israel and its plans regardless of contention.

On the other side, Dennis Ross is also known to be the best marketing officer of Israeli ideas in Washington. He is known to skillfully manipulate political issues such as the strategy of U.S. security and its surrogate Israel.

Regular guests at Cosmos in Washington, say that both George Mitchell and Dennis Ross are often at loggerheads on Middle East Peace Process issues.

George Mitchell meets both Israelis and Palestinians while Dennis Ross fraternises only with Benjamin Netenyahu. The tension between the two indirectly created two camps in Washington on the Middle East Peace Process. Although the two don’t differ on the need for strategic support to Israel and avoiding Jewish anger the tension is, in essence, thanks to Ross`s gradual control of the negotiations.

While Ross talks to Bibi he keeps the “Iran Dossier“ under one arm. He works on Bibi by giving Israel more and convincing Washington to accept “less” of Natenyahu. He does this skillfully and within the framework of global Strategy of the U.S. and its National Security. Ross makes always makes sure that his game “must serve Israel most".

Circles within the Cosmos in Washington D.C say that the administration is paralysed and malfunctioning on the M.E Peace Process. The weightless situation of the administration in Washington, gave Ross an upper hand in the M.E. process. Cleary, due to the inability of the administration to convince Israel to prolong the freezing of construction of settlements in the West Bank, Ross was urgently sent to Israel with a package offer. A la Ross, he was to work within the security and strategy framework.

However, when Israel turned down Ross`package, very few in Washington had an idea about what Ross had done in Tel-Aviv and Jerusalem.

What did Ross do in Israel? This was a question that was never answered honestly. Ross reported very honestly on his talks with the Israel officials. Every word in that report which was read by Obama and Clinton was correct and honest ...
In fact Ross didn’t report it all. Ross could have been under oath and said that everything in the report was correct, but no one thought of asking him under oath if everything had been reported, or whether, perhaps, he decided to keep some details out - his little secret with Natenyahu.

Many might consider what I write here as incredible but it is a fact. It wasn’t for another three months until Ross discussed the freezing of settlements as the priority issue of Washington. Until then he dwelt on the benefits he could provide Israel, on both strategic and security levels.

He told Natenyahu that the administration was disabled and dysfunctional in the Middle East. Yet he allowed Israel to get many benefits in return for the formality of freezing settlements for 3 more months (that would soon end) and as a result, give a big push to building more settlements. But it was Iran`s Dossier was the bulk of the talks between the two.

The second issue Dennis Ross discussed with Bibi was the alternatives to the 2-state solution. Both agreed that such a stale-mate can’t last forever. The Israeli Prime Minister, considered the security offer (defense assurances) as well as the offer of U.S. diplomatic support to Israel.

Dennis Ross offered a bilateral solution. The Israeli Prime Minister accepted and thanked the U.S. for offering this but he gave nothing in return. He refused to prolong the moratorium on the “settlements expansion freeze”. Instead he agreed with Dennis Ross to present “Israeli ideas“ on a settlement with the PNA. These “Ideas” would be transitional and yet satisfy the need of the disabled American administration to give the Palestinians a “Palpable Step”. This could then be considered proof of the U.S intention to fulfill its promises of a two-State Solution: autonomy on parts of the West Bank to be offered in September 2011.
Dennis Ross is playing a key role now, not only as a pivotal engineer of U.S. policy the Middle East generally, but also in the particularly detailed architecture of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Iran and the Israeli Palestinian Peace Process. This role was not foreseen when Ross joined the new administration of Obama as an advisor to Hillary Clinton in the State Department. The “indispensability” of Ross to the administration became very clear when Obama needed to reduce the rising tension between the administration, Benjamin Netanyahu and the American Jewish community on the Middle East Peace Process.

Ross was sent to Israel to reassure the Israelis of the U.S`s dedication to its security and support, and publicly addressed American Jews on the matter. Dennis Ross is a faithful Zionist American Jew. His grandchildren are born Israel citizens. He is a skillful, shrewd negotiator who acquired a rich experience during the Reagan and Bush eras. This is the general impression Ross and the Jewish community in the U.S. like to forge in the minds of Americans.

But the fact is, any person with a normal I.Q. can see that Ross had led the U.S. into a series of failures in negotiating peace in the Middle East. This makes Ross a chief advocate of Israeli expansion, rather than an honest broker and negotiator.

Ross can’t be a fair negotiator, since he there are no dealings except with the Israeli side. Ross’ background provides a very clear explanation to the dangerous and counter peace role he plays in the Middle East.

The question mark over Dennis Ross’ real role in the game of peace in the M.E. was raised earlier at Camp David talks between Barak, Arafat and Clinton. Arafat raised an eye brow when he realized that Ross’ ideas were not “American“ but in fact very similar to the secret information he got from his sources in Israel. These were Israeli ideas to be discussed in Camp David, under the general title “American Ideas”. Ross managed to Israel`s ideas into the mind of Clinton so he would present them as American Proposals.

This is why some consider Ross a failure as a fair American negotiator while Israelis consider him a skillful, trusted negotiator.

At the Present moment, despite suspicions within certain circles in Washington about Ross’s prejudiced attitude in the Middle East, the administration sees him as a key player thanks to his excellent relations with the Israelis.

For those in the administration who think that the American administration is using Ross to tame Israel, it will be a farce rather than an agreement. Someone having dinner in Cosmos with a few friends who are frequent visitors of the White House said: “We will see who will lead who. Ross is committed to Israel”.

The strong ties of Dennis Ross to Israel have many elements that make it implacable. Few might remember that Dennis Ross was the head of the “Jewish People Policy Institute “of Jerusalem. This is a think tank established by the Jewish Agency to help Israel manipulate the U.S. policy in the M.E. and to influence the American Policy Making on the Middle East particularly on the Palestinian issue. His relations and ties to Israel became warmer after his son Gabe married an Israeli which makes his grand children Israelis "before they get their American citizenship".

An acquaintance of Dennis Ross confined to me, while having a drink in Washington’s Cosmos, that Dennis Ross is fanatical Jew who is more faithful to Israel than the Israelis. This man, who is very familiar with the climate of chat in Washington, said that the U.S, in Dennis Ross’ eyes, is a source of wellbeing and security to Israel. This acquaintance is also an American Jew who is worried about the outcome of Ross’ Policy, and the potential for it to reflect itself negatively on American Jews.

Ross is now holding the ropes of the Middle East in a global strategic form. But out of all the Middle East developments Ross focuses on “consultations" with Israel being the U.S’s partner on strategies and security priorities. In other words, to delay American pressure (if any) on Israel to comply with the two state solution and Iran. Ross’ skill on Iran is listening, coordinating and adopting Israeli ideas and plans against Iran.

Under the Security pledges of Obama to Israel, Ross initiated and started a very secret project in the Negev Desert. Scientists from the U.S. and Israel were supplied with secret information on the type of machines Iran use for the uranium enrichment. The document declaring this was carried to the U.S. by General Ali Azgheri who defected to the U.S. It talks of Iran’s nuclear plans, projects and computers. The team (financed by the U.S.) is working day and night on tests that will enable Israel and the U.S. to destroy Iran’s enriched uranium and cripple the enrichment process. Israeli and American submarines, using waters of certain Gulf States like Bahrain and Qatar, carry sophisticated devices to spy on developments in the Iran nuclear program.

The approach of Dennis Ross differs from the approach of George Mitchell on how to achieve peace in the Middle East, and how to solve the Palestinian – Israeli conflict.
The administration is supposed to fulfill its promises to the Palestinians. Dr. Salam Fayyad’s Statement is based on documented American Pledges. That is why he’s is so confident to request a fulfillment of the American promises and pledges by September 2011.

Mitchell believes that negotiations must continue, no matter what. He believes that if negotiations continue an agreement is bound to be made. Ross is Skeptical about this, and feels the only way to achieve anything is by working solely with Israel.

The ceiling of Obama`s administration on the solution is more or less the same as Clinton’s plan of 2000. But this, according to Ross is not valid any more. Mitchell tries to adhere to it while Ross is pushing for a new American perspective which is more akin to Ben Gurion`s original plan for the West Bank, modified à la Netanyahu`s vision. That was true until the Middle East’s latest development started (or ignited).

Ross is now offensively calling for a drawback of the U.S. from the Middle East Process, as an involved patron. Ross wants the U.S. to lead the management only. An Israel veteran journalist told me that this drawback of peaceful dialogue was the advice of Netanyhu to the Administration. Mitchell wants negotiations to be resumed.

Until now Obama has taken the absentee lord attitude, while the rest of the administration are still actively involved. There is little time to be patient on Washington `s dysfunction, or the Palestinian Israel contradiction, especially in view of the massive military activity Obama had ordered in the M.E. to help “Freedom , Democracy and Popular demands" .

The questions which are spreading quickly in Washington now is: “What about the Freedom of Palestinians? What about the American Promise about the Palestinian Dream?
These questions add weight to the Mitchell opinion but will Ross allow this?

One must keep a close look and observe carefully any developments on the Iranian front and on the Shiaa`s unrest in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. The skillful Denis Ross might listen to Netnyahu`s advice on military action in Iran and sending an ultimatum to NAJAD on the Nuclear activities of Iran. This may happen if Israel and other influential circles present dubious reports on Iran`s involvement in Saudi Arabia`s unrest.

Experts on Middle East, however, who are Orientalists can immediately put forward the intervention that: The M.E. is an area that can always come up with the unexpected. This is true.

It might be a surprise to many, including the “Advocate“, to see an uprising, and bloody one this time, erupting in Palestine before the end of 2011.

The secret meetings that were held between Netanyahu and President Abbas in Russia, served the view of Mitchell but didn’t achieve palpable conclusions .This is, anyway, what Mitchell is after while Ross is still working for a U.S. “sorting” of the pledge.


*Mitchell, has since resigned from the post of Special Envoy to the Middle East as this article anticipated.

** Bassam Abu Sharif is a former senior adviser to the late Palestinian president Yasser Arafat and press officer of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO). He contributed this article to Ammon News English.