Jackson Diehl schreibt in der Washington Post auf, was der Amtsinhaber von seinem Vorgänger George W. Bush hätte lernen können, wenn er denn hätte lernen wollen:
„The trick is not to let the provocation become the center of attention but instead to insist on proceeding with the negotiations. That is what Rice did when news of the Jerusalem settlement of Har Homa broke. In public, she delivered a clear but relatively mild statement saying the United States had opposed the settlement ‚from the very beginning.‘ In private, she told Olmert: Don’t let that happen again. For Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, the message was equally blunt: You can come to the table and negotiate a border for a Palestinian state, making settlements irrelevant. Or you can boycott and let the building continue. [..]
Eventually, Olmert presented Abbas with a detailed plan for a final settlement – one that, in its concessions to Palestinian demands, went beyond anything either Israel or the United States had ever put forward. Among other things it mandated a Palestinian state with a capital in Jerusalem and would have allowed 10,000 refugees to return to Israel.
That’s when Rice learned another lesson the new administration seems not to have picked up: This Palestinian leadership has trouble saying ‚yes.‘ Confronted with a draft deal that would have been cheered by most of the world, Abbas balked. He refused to sign on; he refused to present a counteroffer. Rice and Bush implored him to join Olmert at the White House for a summit. Olmert would present his plan to Bush, and Abbas would say only that he found it worth discussing. The Palestinian president refused.“
Und dann übernahm Barack Hussein Obama, der keinen Wert mehr legte auf die Anerkennung des Existenzrechts Israels, eine Entwaffnung „palästinensischer“ Terroristenbanden und demokratische Strukturen in der PA, sondern sehr zur Freude des Antisemiten Abu Mazen in Juden ein „Friedenshindernis“ erblickte, die am Leben hängen.