Palestinians sing good riddance to Trump but cautious about Biden

Like many Americans, Palestinians looked to the U.S. elections with anxious anticipation. It was no secret that another Trump term would mean more trouble. There were genuine concerns that the Palestinian Authority couldn’t withstand another four years of extreme political and financial pressures. Prime Minister Mohammed Shtayyeh had little reservation saying that “God help us if Trump was re-elected.” 

With Joe Biden’s victory, Palestinians took a well-earned sigh of relief. But it’s hardly the end of the story. Singing good riddance to Trump is one thing, but putting many Palestinian eggs in Biden’s basket is another.  

The majority believe that a Biden/Harris administration may not live up to their national aspirations, but many are still happy for the time being to settle for the return of the U.S. traditionalist role in the region. This role was never sufficiently good, but at the minimum it may open up some dialogue with a relatively reasonable administration, as opposed to the inexperienced yet patronizing and ideologically toxic Trump administration. 

The New York Times states correctly that Abbas and his lieutenants are counting on a President Biden to end the discussion about annexation and shelve the Trump administration’s lopsidedly pro-Israel plan for resolving the conflict. They are expecting a return to U.S. support for a two-state solution that Palestinians would consider viable. They are hoping for a thaw with the White House, and wishing for the reinstatement of at least some financial aid. A Biden presidency will provide Abbas with a ladder to climb down from the tree.

Kamala Harris was clear about reinstating the U.S. relations with the Palestinians. She said to the Arab American News: “We are committed to a two-state solution, and we will oppose any unilateral steps that undermine that goal. We will also oppose annexation and settlement expansion.” Harris also pledged to “restore economic and humanitarian assistance to the Palestinian people, address the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza, reopen the U.S. consulate in East Jerusalem and work to reopen the PLO mission in Washington.” 

The prospects of the new administration’s foreign policy stands as a probable departure from Trump’s doctrine, which led to Israel tightening the occupation and transformed the U.S. from an already questionable broker in the Israeli-Palestinian relations, to an outright opponent and inciter against everything Palestinian. More critical yet, as Trump buoyed his strategy, some of the traditional friends became bitter critics, others reset alliances. In recent weeks three Arab countries took the path of normalization with Israel, where Palestinians were not a consideration. 

As the talk about normalization spread in the region, attacking Palestinians on the Saudi government-owned Al-Arabiya news network grew exponentially. Most recently, in October Saudi Arabia’s former intelligence chief and ambassador to the U.S., Prince Bandar bin Sultan accused both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas, of “transgressions against the Gulf state’s leadership” and claimed Palestinian leaders had ignored the betterment of their people in exchange for “reprehensible discourse,” in-fighting, and “treason.” Saudi Arabia is a key financial backer of the Palestinian Authority. The comments were astonishing in that the interview marked a level of public condemnation beyond the scale of anything witnessed before, indicating a possible strategy to prepare the Saudis for future ties with Israel.

Cornered and powerless, over the last four years Palestinians resorted to what they do best: sumud (perseverance and steadfastness). Word on the street was that, indeed, “skinning a dead goat doesn’t hurt it,” a metaphor for “more pain won’t make much difference.” As the pressure escalated, frustrated and angry, many Palestinians on social media called upon the Palestinian Authority to dismantle itself and throw the burden of the occupation on Israel, something the Palestinian Authority itself has threatened repeatedly since 2008. 

This strategy was a non-strategy. Apart from a hesitant freezing of some of the cooperation with Israel and the occasional angry statements, the best they could do was wait for Trump’s presidency to end.

Lacking viable options or sufficient room for maneuverability even in the Arab vicinity, the Palestinian Authority acted defensively. It boycotted the U.S. administration and refused to meet with any American diplomats. So much so that Abbas refused to answer Trump’s multiple phone calls, which without a doubt hit Trump where it hurt the most, his ego, and consequently further antagonized him against the Palestinian leadership well beyond politics. Antagonizing the White House dweller was also the shortest path to antagonizing some Arab regimes, especially in the Gulf. 

In the past, support from Arab states gave the Palestinians the confidence to resist U.S. and Israeli pressure to soften their demands. That backing has always been contingent, but now – especially with the Trump-driven wave of normalization and bullying – the support seems more precarious. Trump, like all the successive US administrations, however, underestimated the Palestinian leadership’s willingness to stand up to outside pressure. At the time, a friend of Abbas’s said that Abbas would rather die than give in.  

The situation was in fact so intense that Abbas felt there was no longer room for subtle diplomacy. He, for example, had little trouble openly describing ambassador David Friedman to Israel (known among Palestinians as ‘Israel’s ambassador in Israel’) as  ‘a settler, and son of a dog.’ Which is the English equivalent of calling someone a bastard. 

Online, fiery condemnations from Trump’s envoy Jason Greenblatt and Palestinian politicians was a common place. Late chief negotiator Saeb Erekat frequently wrote heated tweets about Jared Kushner and Greenblatt. An NBC News analysis of Greenblatt’s Twitter showed he had made 186 negative comments about Palestinians, often naming officials, and zero about Israel while working for the administration. 

Optimistic vision, pessimistic reality

Realistically, however, there are various reasons for Palestinians to remain cautious. As far as the Middle East is concerned, the Trump administration saw the U.S.’s foreign affairs almost strictly through the Israeli eyes, thanks to the influence of evangelical Christians, and Netanyahu allies in the White House. A Biden administration will probably roll back the U.S. foreign policy to the traditionalist approach which views the Middle East strictly from a U.S.-centric perspective, but with special emphasis on Israel’s safety and prosperity. 

So far, there have been 70 years of initiatives by the consecutive U.S. administrations to settle the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

In his book “Brokers of Deceit,” Rashid Khalidi explains that despite occasional minor disagreements on specifics, the policies of the Israeli and American governments towards the Palestinians have been so closely intertwined that, by virtually any objective reckoning, the United States should have no credibility as an intermediary between the two parties. He notes the series of broken promises successive U.S. administrations have made to the Palestinians, particularly regarding a freeze on the construction of settlements in the occupied West Bank. Khalidi described, in 2010 the U.S. offered Netanyahu “a measly three-month settlement freeze, which would not apply to the entire greater Jerusalem region, linked to an unprecedented promise never to ask for such a freeze again.” [emphasis in original]

Let’s assume for the sake of argument that the Biden administration is truly committed to the two-state solution. There might be two critical factors that still hinder the new administration’s efforts: one is geopolitical, the other is ideological. 

First, it’s perhaps unrealistic to assume that President-elect Biden will be a continuation of the Obama era. The post-Trump Middle East is a different region with new geopolitical realities. Also thanks to Trump’s unconditional support to Netanyahu’s agenda, the influence of Israel’s right-wing is more widespread than ever. So, it may be unlikely there will be a complete return to the status quo in terms of reversing Trump’s decision to recognize Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. 

As of the time of writing this article, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was visiting a West Bank settlement and later the same day went to the Golan Heights. These are further attempts – in a final bid to Israel – to substantiate the new facts on the ground, obstructing any efforts by the future administration to reinstate the status quo. So far, this strategy seems to have worked. Even though he criticized moving the embassy to Jerusalem, Biden said he wouldn’t pull it back to Tel Aviv. The European Council of Foreign Relations estimates that, even if he intends to reverse the embassy move, Biden may well be hindered by a Republican controlled Senate that wields considerable power on this file. In other words, what happens on the ground remains, and therefore any possible peace initiatives must build on the latest geopolitical facts. Which practically means that the size of a potential Palestinian state, if it ever happens, is becoming smaller and its success less likely.  

Second, ideologically, Biden’s pro-Israel record is as persistent as any in the Democratic Party’s mainstream, and so are his ties with the Israel lobby. On his presidency campaign’s website, Biden declares his “unstinting support for Israel.” He goes on to criticize the Trump administration’s “destructive cut-off of diplomatic ties with the Palestinian Authority,” calling the damaged relationship harmful to the Palestinian-Israeli security cooperation. This means, among other things, that aid to Palestinians and support of a two-state solution is above all a path to save Israel from itself. A Palestinian state’s primary value, in other words, is to ensure Israel’s survival, and not as a reinstatement of justice for the Palestinians.

What’s next?

For Palestinians, Biden is better than Trump, no doubt. But is he good enough? The experience with the U.S. so far leaves no doubt he won’t be. It might even be that in certain instances Trump was better. Trump, for instance, removed all the pretence of support by Arab regimes. Perhaps a must needed wake-up call to the Palestinian leadership. His presidency, by aggressively and publicly lining up with the most far-right causes, had undermined a bipartisan, pro-Israel consensus. 

Palestinians need to rise to the challenge. Indeed, we had dodged the Trump bullet, but not without sustaining multiple wounds, some of which well beyond repair. What matters is counting on and working toward Palestinian internal unity and developing a sound strategy different from the one the Palestinian Authority has thus far embraced and which led to multiple failures and crises. It is time, perhaps long overdue, to drop history as a tool of reminiscence and victimhood and embrace it as a tool of learning. In a nutshell, Palestine needs fresh blood, a more efficient leadership that is less archaic and beholden to Oslo, and the dated revolutionary sentiments.