A stand-alone tribunal to which more than 120 nations belong, it allows international prosecution for war crimes, crimes against humanity and what Bolton described as a vaguely defined charge of “aggression.” Although it is positioned as a court of “last resort” for those countries with nonfunctional judicial systems, many have argued that its very existence is a violation of national sovereignty. Nearly all of its indictments so far have been against Africans, leading some African nations to charge that it is a new form of co­lo­ni­al­ism.<doc-sep>The Trump Administration announced plans Monday to close the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) mission in Washington D.C., sparking visceral reactions from Palestinian officials. The mission, which serves as a de facto embassy Palestinian embassy, has been given a month to pack up. The move was described by PLO Executive Committee Member Hanan Ashrawi as “crude and vicious blackmail” while the head of the PLO Delegation to the United States, Ambassador Husam Zomlot, called it part of an “ongoing campaign to liquidate our [Palestinian] rights and cause.” The intensity of the Palestinian reactions cannot be explained purely by Monday’s announcement. After all, the PLO mission in Washington was regularly bypassed by senior Palestinian leaders in Ramallah who preferred to directly engage with U.S. officials—whether in terms of bilateral U.S.-Palestinian relations or regarding matters relating to the peace process. But the move is particularly symbolic. And with an escalatory dynamic and heated tensions defining Palestinian-U.S. relations in recent months, the mission’s closure has now become a major flashpoint. The establishment of a PLO mission in Washington in 1994 was a seminal moment. The PLO had understood since the 1970s that despite overwhelming international sympathy, any progress towards creating a Palestinian state would require engagement with the U.S.; since then it had repeatedly sought to establish such relations. The euphoria that followed the signing of the Oslo Accords 25 years ago made achieving this goal possible. For leaders like Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, this was proof the PLO was universally recognized as the uncontested representative of the Palestinian people, and that the Palestinian issue was on its way toward resolution with American support. When Hamas forcibly took control of Gaza in 2007, leaving the Palestinian Authority (PA) only in control of parts of the West Bank, the PA’s relations with the U.S. proved essential both of ensuring that the international community isolated Hamas and continued to diplomatically and financially support the PA. In 1997, as the peace process began to flounder, the operation of the PLO office came under increasing limitations that could only be bypassed if the president issued a waiver and certified that operation of the office “is important to the national security of the United States.” But these waivers were always readily signed by successive U.S. presidents—even when Palestinian-American relations were strained. It’s easy to forget now, but Palestinian relations with President Donald Trump actually started on a high note. Trump welcomed Abbas at the White House on May 3, 2017 and hailed “positive ongoing partnership between the United States and the Palestinians.” Abbas returned the compliment a few weeks later when he hosted Trump in Bethlehem, calling him a “dear friend” and “a great guest of our people.” Soon after that, however, tensions began to rise. The Palestinians were alarmed when the U.S. started exploring the possibility of convincing Arab states to establish relations with Israel prior to peace being reached between the Palestinians and Israelis. The U.S. wanted to create additional incentives for Israel and to widen the stakeholders in a peace process. The Palestinians, traditionally wary of Arab attempts to co-opt their issue, saw this as an attempt to marginalize them. That would become a persistent theme in their relations with the Trump Administration. The rapid collapse of Palestinian-U.S. relations, however, happened on December 6 2017 when the U.S. decided to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and to move its embassy to the contested city. The following months saw a number of U.S. measures that sparked the ire of the Palestinians, including cutting U.S. aid to the Palestinians and to UNRWA, the U.N. agency tasked with providing for Palestinian refugees. U.S. officials maintain that steps such as those relating to Jerusalem constitute a recognition of the reality that Israel considers Jerusalem as its capital and is unlikely to change that position. They argue that taking these thorny issues “off the table”—as Trump phrased it—simplifies the quest for peace. In their view, withholding aid and shuttering the PLO office are tools to pressure the Palestinians to “come back to the table.” Palestinians see things differently. They see American steps regarding Jerusalem and UNRWA as an attempt to prejudge the outcome of peace negotiations in a way that denies them their rights, and regard withholding aid as “blackmail.” As such, Abbas decided to sever all contact with U.S. officials in December 2017 shortly after the US recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, announced his refusal to engage with any peace plan presented by the Trump Administration and embarked on a vigorous regional and international diplomatic campaign to counter these U.S. measures. Another issue that has deepened the mistrust is Gaza. Controlled since 2007 by Hamas, the PLO’s bitter rival, the impoverished coastal strip has long been facing a dire humanitarian situation, with unemployment reaching 44%, and electricity only available for as little as four hours a day. Starting in March 2018, the security situation began to deteriorate and by the summer threatened to transform into yet another open conflict between Hamas and Israel. Abbas had contributed to the deepening crisis by imposing some financial sanctions against the Strip and refusing to cooperate with Egyptian and U.N. proposals to alleviate the humanitarian situation. The U.S. was frustrated with Abbas’ inflexibility and supported Egyptian and U.N. attempts to directly broker a truce between Israel and Hamas. Abbas saw this as yet another American attempt to marginalize him and the PLO. After all this, Monday’s decision to close the PLO office in Washington has come to encapsulate the essence of the rising hostility between the U.S. and the Palestinians. The U.S. sees the move as a legitimate tool of pressure against an intransigent PLO, while the PLO sees it as proof that the US is intent on marginalizing it and denying Palestinians’ legitimate representation. Yet both sides may have hit a dead end. With the closure of the PLO office, the U.S. may well have exhausted the diplomatic and financial pressure tools at its disposal. And while the Palestinians may have so far withstood American pressure, they are back in a situation similar to the pre-Oslo days: despite enjoying the support of many in the international community, they are unable to advance their cause because of the lack of U.S. support. This new reality could end the already eroding Palestinian support for a diplomatic solution to the conflict. And to the detriment of Palestinians and Israelis alike, it could also usher the rise of extremist elements like Hamas. Sign up for Inside TIME. Be the first to see the new cover of TIME and get our most compelling stories delivered straight to your inbox. Please enter a valid email address. * The request timed out and you did not successfully sign up. Please attempt to sign up again. Sign Up Now An unexpected error has occurred with your sign up. Please try again later. Check the box if you do not wish to receive promotional offers via email from TIME. You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Thank you! For your security, we've sent a confirmation email to the address you entered. Click the link to confirm your subscription and begin receiving our newsletters. If you don't get the confirmation within 10 minutes, please check your spam folder. Contact us at letters@time.com.<doc-sep>
The United States says the offices of the General Delegation of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) in Washington should close. The U.S. State Department said on Monday that the PLO has not taken steps to support the start of direct and meaningful negotiations with Israel. The Associated Press reports that a requirement in U.S. law states that the PLO mission must close if the peace process does not move forward. President Donald Trump has shown strong support for Israel and criticized Palestinian leaders for not doing enough to work toward a peace deal. The Trump administration said that the PLO has not worked with the U.S. government in peace efforts. The group has also condemned an American peace plan that has yet to be released. The State Department added that the decision to close the PLO offices is consistent with concerns within the administration and in the U.S. Congress. Issues of concern include Palestinian attempts to get the International Criminal Court (ICC) to take legal action against Israel. The ICC was established in 2002. The court’s aim is to bring to justice individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. Administration official speaks about the ICC President Trump’s national security advisor, John Bolton, spoke about the ICC during his visit Monday to the Federalist Society research group, in Washington. Bolton noted that the U.S. government never signed the treaty creating the court and does not recognize it. He also said the U.S. would consider restrictions against ICC lawyers or officials involved in efforts to investigate Americans. The U.S. government has traditionally positioned itself as a neutral party in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. The U.S. does not recognize the Palestinian territories of the West Bank and Gaza as an independent state. The United Nations General Assembly, however, voted in 2012 to recognize Palestine as what it calls a “member observer state.” The statements by the State Department and Bolton come as the U.S. government has increased pressure on the Palestinians to get involved in peace efforts. This month, the United States announced it was stopping payments to the U.N. agency that helps Palestinian refugees. The U.S. government supplies nearly 30 percent of the budget for the U.N. Relief and Works Agency. In addition to UN aid, the government cancelled another $200 million in direct aid to Palestinians last month. The PLO denounced the decision to close its Washington offices. PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashrawi said the U.S. policy was unfair. She said, through its actions, the U.S. “seeks to punish the Palestinian people as a whole.” I’m Mario Ritter. The Associated Press reported this story. Mario Ritter adapted the report for VOA Learning English. George Grow was the editor. _______________________________________________________________ Words in This Story mission – n. a group of people sent to a foreign country for a purpose or reason consistent – adj. always acting or behaving in the same way We want to hear from you. Write to us in the Comments section, and visit our Facebook page.