Mahmoud Abbas « Yourish.com

11/09/2009

An unworthy hack

Filed under: palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 12:00 pm

The New York Times had a symposium on Mahmoud Abbas’s resignation. Three of the participants, Rashid Khalidi, Fawaz Gerges, and Daoud Kuttab took the approach that Abbas had his authority undermined by the Americans and has no partner among Israelis so his moderate approach had run its course. An Israeli professor, Menachem Klein looked at things in much the same way. Ronen Bergman attributes it to the Obama administration’s missteps. David Makovsky doesn’t think he’s really resigned.

But no one in this group actually questions the premise if Abbas is really the moderate (implicitly) supposed by the question. (To Gerges and Khalidi, presumably he was too moderate.)

Khaled Abu Toameh though, calls the move a “big bluff,” and puts much of the onus on Abbas for his own weakness.

Fatah’s failure to come up with new faces is also seen by many Palestinians as evidence that the faction is not serious when it comes to implementing reforms. With candidates like Muhammad Dahlan, Jibril Rajoub and Nabil Sha’ath, Fatah is certain to lose the vote once again. Decision-makers in the US and the EU have clearly forgotten that these three men were part of the Fatah list that lost the elections to Hamas in 2006. And they appear to have forgotten that Barghouti, who is often described by mainstream media in the US as a popular and charismatic leader, was the head of that list.

(My impression is that Hamas isn’t all that popular right now as it hasn’t succeeded in doing much but making the people of Gaza more miserable.) And of course, how seriously could Abbas’s commitment to fighting corruption be, when his sons benefit from a cellular franchise? This is the way Fatah always did business, giving the favored few, lucrative business deals?

But it is Evelyn Gordon who really blows the lid off Abbas. She actually recalls his record!

Indeed, Abbas’s total lack of interest in a deal was evidenced by his handling of Ehud Olmert’s (overly) generous September 2008 offer, which included 94 percent of the territories, 1:1 territorial swaps to compensate for the remainder, international Muslim control over the Temple Mount, and absorption into Israel of several thousand refugees. Last week, Abbas said that he and Olmert “almost closed” a deal, implying that the current impasse stems from Olmert’s replacement by Benjamin Netanyahu. But in reality, Abbas never even bothered responding to Olmert’s offer until nine months later, long after Olmert had left office — and even then, he did so via a media interview rather than directly. And, most important, he rejected the offer, saying “the gaps were wide.”

Even Abbas’s vaunted opposition to terror has proved false. In 2005, his one year in sole control over the PA before Hamas’s electoral victory, Palestinians killed 54 Israelis and wounded 484, while 1,059 rockets and mortars were fired at Israel from Gaza. Yet not only did Abbas never order his forces to combat this terror; he explicitly and repeatedly refused to do so. He first cracked down on Hamas only in 2007, after its violent takeover of Gaza convinced him that Hamas threatened him, not just Israel. And he recently agreed to end this clampdown under a reconciliation agreement with Hamas.

Now go back, if you wish, and read the New York Times “debate” and you’ll realize it was a less a debate than an agreement (from different perspectives) for more Israeli concessions to an unworthy political hack.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (0)

10/15/2009

Why Abbas is failing

The Washington Post describes how Mahmoud Abbas has lost popularity.

First there was the failure to achieve a cost free advantage.

Obama named Mitchell as his peace envoy just one day after taking office in an effort to demonstrate to Arabs and Europeans that he was deeply invested in achieving a peace deal. Mitchell was given instructions to set the stage for talks by negotiating a package deal that included an Israeli settlement freeze and incremental steps by Arab states toward normalization of relations with Israel.

But the settlement push backfired. It raised hopes among Palestinians, who began to demand nothing less than a full freeze, and led to severe tensions in U.S.-Israeli relations. Obama abruptly shifted course last month at the three-way meeting, calling for immediate talks, but it has since become apparent that both sides were dug in.

Then there was a sign of moderation:

At Palestinian insistence, the U.N. Human Rights Council is scheduled to debate the war crimes report Thursday — a discussion that two weeks ago the Palestinian Authority had agreed, at U.S. insistence, to put off for six months.

That delay proved to be a critical misstep for Abbas, undermining his political standing at home and his ability to lead Palestinian society into new negotiations with the Israelis.

What does the Goldstone Commission report have to do with the peace process? My guess is that the Palestinians are so used to using “international law” as leverage in negotiations with Israel, many of them are eager to press their advantage with Goldstone. Netanyahu isn’t buying though. It’s an interesting ploy. A movement that gained its popularity through terrorism, (”If they do such terrible things, their situation must be unbearable”) uses international to gain advantages in negotiations.

Additionally instead of preparing his people for peace even the “moderate” Abbas (as he’s mischaracterized in the Washington Post report) officially perpetuates Israel as the enemy.

So instead of taking advantage of the most sympathetic administration towards their cause in a decade or more, the Palestinians have instead decided to blame the Obama administration for failing to get the results they want. As Barry Rubin observes:

Now if the Palestinian Authority and Fatah aren’t happy with Obama they are going to have a very difficult time ever finding a U.S. government they like.

And even given this attitude, their “job” is to court the U.S. government, give it incentives to help them, show they are compromising in order to win its favor, and prove they can deliver benefits for American interest. But they have no concept of such a strategy.

“Concrete benefits” of the peace process for the Palestinians mean more Israeli concessions with no moderation on their part. Having convinced themselves that the benefits were coming to them with President Obama in office – and with no effort on their own – are now disappointed. Of course, Abbas gets blamed for his one act of moderation, but that’s a function of the immoderate nature of Palestinian politics.

If he really were seeking peace and statehood, Abbas would be successful. But bashing Israel
is his overriding interest. Given that, peace talks will get nowhere.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

05/31/2009

Stall. Wait for pressure. Get concessions. Add some violence. Repeat.

Filed under: Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Noah Pollak describes Mahmoud Abbas’s negotiating strategy as described in an interview with Jackson Diehl, as a “Princess Bride strategy.”

Diehl seems to get it too as he writes:

Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze — if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. “It will take a couple of years,” one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession — such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

There’s no reason to expect otherwise. That’s what happened, of course, during the 90’s. President Clinton wasn’t happy with Netanyahu’s approach to the peace process. So Clinton did everything in his power to undermine Netanyahu. He even reneged on an agreement he made with Netanyahu when Arafat objected to it. Netanyahu’s standing at home crumbled and Ehud Barak was elected prime minister in his place.

That, of course, allowed Clnton to make his attempt to bring peace to the Middle East an earn a Nobel Peace Prize. But as well know, Arafat rejected Barak’s offer and started the “Aqsa intifada.”

Diehl points out that Olmert offered Abbas even more than Barak had (offered Arafat) and it still wasn’t enough.

But by now we have a pattern. The Palestinian refuse to negotiate. They expect American pressure on Israel. (And the Obama administration seems willing to provide that pressure.) When they get the American pressure and Israel capitulates they claim it’s still not enough and refuse to budge. (Jack explains why it will never be enough.) All the while the Palestinian refuse to take the basic steps to build an economy (something Netanyahu wants to encourage – and did encourage when he was PM in the 90’s) or accountable political institutions or take any steps you’d expect if their goal was an independent state.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (2)

05/27/2009

Bolstering the unelected kleptocrat

Filed under: Israel, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

The Washington Post emphasizes what a slender reed the United States is depending on as a key to peace, Abbas’s credibility problem. Unfortunately the article skims over various reasons why Abbas shouldn’t have any credibility to Israel.

Abbas, 74, a longtime aide to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, took over after Arafat’s death in 2004 and won election on his own the following year. Trained as a lawyer and historian, Abbas came to power from a career spent burrowing into the fine points of peace talks.

Calling Abbas a historian, is glossing over the fact that he is a doctor of Holocaust denial. Also for years he was Arafat’s number two. Arafat may have talked “peace” to the West, but until his death he was a terrorist. His second in command never condemned his superior’s perfidy. And in the case of the Munich terror attack actually secured the funding for the operation. Another way to describe Abbas is “bag man.”

Of course the article isn’t focused on explaining why Israel might be hesitant to deal with Abbas. It’s given that Israel has to deal. The article explains why Abbas may be unfit to lead from the Palestinian side.

Hamas, which won 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, clashed with Abbas’s Fatah movement and seized full control of the Gaza Strip. That division remains, with the Palestinian Authority in charge of the occupied West Bank. Talks over a joint government have been held but with no obvious progress.

Fatah is seen by many Palestinians as faltering under a legacy of corruption. It has not held a general convention in 20 years, frustrating younger activists and reformers. Hamas remains popular, earning sympathy for a recent three-week war with Israel and fighting Israel’s ongoing economic blockade of Gaza.

In addition, Abbas’s four-year term ended in January. Although his office contends that the law allows him another year, it still has given Palestinian governance a sense of uncertainty at a time when the United States is hoping for solid results.

Hamas argues that Abbas’s presidency is now illegitimate, as are the ministers he recently appointed to keep the government functioning. Hamas’s organization in the West Bank has been under heavy pressure from Israeli and Palestinian Authority security forces. Many of its elected parliamentarians from the area are in prison.

Daled Amos shows that Hamas might well be correct about Abbas’s power grab. Still no one complained when Arafat overstayed his term in office without standing for re-election. And Daled Amos also previously pointed out that Hamas is in power illegally too.

And, of course, the Washington Post takes the view that Abbas is constrained by Israel’s unreasonableness.

From a U.S. perspective, helping Abbas show results is the goal, said Rep. Gary L. Ackerman (D-N.Y.), member of a congressional delegation touring the region this week and chairman of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.

“Both Netanyahu and Obama need to create in Abu Mazen a clear feeling that he can provide,” said Ackerman, using the common nickname for Abbas.

Husseini, the chief of staff, argues that the help is deserved — particularly from the Israeli side. Although Palestinian politics are in disarray, Abbas’s government has been given broad credit for cleaning up the Palestinian Authority’s finances and improving security in the West Bank.

Israel has gone down this path before and found that removing checkpoints has led to increases in terror. One of the first victims of Arafat’s “Aqsa intifada” was Yossi Tabaja, who was shot by the Palestinian who was with him on a joint patrol. By now the Palestinians have to show a sustained commitment to coexistence in word and deed.

Barry Rubin presents the problem more generally:

Anyone who wants to deal with the conflict today must acknowledge and deal with this experience but we find that it is not happening. In the statements of Western leaders and in the media, what we usually discover is that such matters are either not mentioned at all or only passed over in ritualistic fashion. There is much talk about Israeli concessions and responsibilities, virtually none about Palestinian ones.

Thus, the two-state solution (TSS) or stopping settlement construction or removing roadblocks are spoken about as if these things alone will bring peace. There is little about a Palestinian Authority (PA) end to incitement to murder Israelis and denial of Israel’s right to exist (which goes on daily) or better security efforts, or agreement to end the conflict or to resettle refugees within a Palestinian state. There is little acknowledgement that Hamas’s control of the Gaza Strip is not just an inconvenience but an almost total roadblock for any hope of peace.

So while the poltical, diplomatic, academic and journalistic worlds wait for PM Netanyahu to say “two state solution,” Mahmoud Abbas the moderate leader of the PA can’t even bring himself to say that Israel is a Jewish state. With those around Abbas refusing to compromise, it’s a bit absurd to attribute Abbas’s weak standing on his inability to deliver a better life for the Palestinians because Israel is recalcitrant. Despite some cosmetic changes – that in no way came from him – he is still the same Holocaust denying, terror supporter he always was. Israel has no reason to trust him any more than it trusted his mentor and predecessor.

Regardless, Daled Amos in comments succinctly describes Israel’s choices:

“Dealing with an unelected kleptocrat or an elected terrorist.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

04/28/2009

What’s a Jewish state got to with it?

Filed under: Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Isabel Kershner of the NY Times reports that “moderate” Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas refuses to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state.

The Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, on Monday dismissed a demand by Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, underscoring the considerable gaps between the sides.

“I do not accept it,” Mr. Abbas said in a speech in Ramallah, in the West Bank. “It is not my job to give a description of the state. Name yourself the Hebrew Socialist Republic — it is none of my business,” he added, according to Reuters.

Mr. Netanyahu, who took office almost a month ago, has refused to endorse the notion of an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel as a solution for the conflict, as many nations urge. But he says Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national state of the Jewish people is crucial for progress in any future talks.

Netanyahu changed his stance a little from his original statement and said that no agreement was possible without the Palestinians accepting Israel as a ~~Palestinian~~ Jewish state. (Thanks to commenter Noam for the catch!)

But it’s misleading to write that Netanyahu doesn’t accept “an independent Palestinian state” as Barry Rubin points out:

But the fact is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted the two-state solution back in 1997 when he took over in the midst of the Oslo agreement peace process and committed himself to all preceding agreements.

And Rubin turns things around.

This is not the real issue. The real issue is this: much of the world wants Israel to agree in advance to give the Palestinian Authority (PA) what they think it wants without any concessions or demonstration of serious intent on its part.

The first problem is that the demand is totally one-sided. Does the PA truly accept a two-state solution? That isn’t what it tells its own people in officials’ speeches, documents of the ruling Fatah group, schools, the sermons of PA-appointed clerics, and the PA-controlled media.

The second problem is that PA compliance with its earlier commitments is pretty miserable, though this is a point that almost always goes unmentioned in Western diplomatic declarations and media.

Since 1993, Israel has given the Palestinian Authority legitimacy (the PLO supposedly renounced violence in return for no longer being considered a terrorist organization), territory ( Jericho, Ramallah, Bethlehem, Tulkarem, Kalkilye, Nablus, Jenin and all of Gaza) arms, money and the Palestians have failed to keep a single term (no violence, no incitement against Israel) of the Oslo agreements. Given that Abbas has done nothing for Israel, the question really should be whether or not Abbas (or any leader of the PA) accepts the notion of an independent Jewish state living alongside a Palestinian state. Abbas’s latest makes it clear that the answer is most likely “no.”

Kershner goes on:

During a trip to the region in mid-April, President Obama’s envoy to the Middle East, George J. Mitchell, said the two-state solution was the “only solution” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, leaving the conservative-leaning Mr. Netanyahu and his predominantly right-wing government little room for maneuver.

Abbas is clearly expressing his own hesitations about a two state solution and yet Kershner doesn’t mention anything about his “room to maneuver.”

Kershner, though, does get credit for this:

In an attempt to bolster the Palestinian argument, Mr. Erekat on Monday produced a copy of a letter signed by President Harry S. Truman on May 14, 1948. In its original form, it recognizes the provisional government of the new Jewish state, but the typed words “Jewish state” in the second paragraph have been crossed out and replaced with the handwritten “State of Israel.”

Shlomo Avineri, a professor of political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, said Mr. Erekat was misinterpreting the American president’s intention. According to Mr. Avineri, the Truman letter had been prepared hours before Israel declared its independence, before the new country had chosen its name.

It’s nice to see an American paper quoting Shlomo Avineiri again. And it’s all too familiar seeing a “moderate” Palestinian trying to rewrite history.

Yaacov Lozowick considers Abbas’s statement to be “not news:”

The peculiar thing about this is that it’s not news. It has been the official Palestinian position ever since they began recognizing Israel’s existence, somewhere between the late 1980s and early 1990s, and it effectively negates the recognition because it assumes large numbers of Palestinians will move into Israel, thus turning it into a bi-national state at best. No official Palestinian spokesman ever said otherwise, no matter how moderate he purports to be. This is the main reason why even Olmert and Livni never got close to a peace agreement with Abbas during the 18 months or so of their talks: the positions of the two sides are too far apart.

Shmuel Rosner expects that Abbas’s outburst will strengthen Netanyahu domestically. (Rosner’s Israel Factor panel doesn’t foresee a major confrontation between Israel and the United States over a two state solution.) Israel Matzav picks up another immoderate suggestion by Abbas: that Hamas divide into political and military “wings” so that they can receive American funding. (What? They weren’t already divided into wings?) And Yid With Lid notices that Abbas essentially said give us all we want, then we’ll talk.

Not surprisingly Bashar Assad says roughly the same thing.

Syrian President Bashar Assad believes that the return of the Golan Heights is a condition for peace talks between his country and Israel, but at the same time does not foresee such negotiations happening in the near future.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

12/16/2008

Saving Palestinian advertising dollars

Filed under: Israel, palestinian politics — Tags: Advertising, Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 11:00 am

So Mahmoud Abbas and co. are appealing to the Israeli people directly.

Along Route 2, which follows the Mediterranean coastline, motorists are seeing an unusual sight: a Palestinian flag next to an Israeli one.

Below the image appearing on billboards is a message in Hebrew: There’s a viable peace initiative on offer from Arab states. Reach a land-for-peace deal with Palestinians, and we will recognize you. The signature? The flags of 57 Arab and Muslim states – all except Iran.

The unprecedented ad campaign is the initiative of none other than the Palestinian Authority (PA). Late last month, the PA also ran full-page ads with the same message in Israeli papers.

The reporter notes the irony:

The campaign represents an interesting role reversal. A decade ago, it was the Israeli government that was trying to sell its own skeptical electorate on peace, while the late Yasser Arafat had trouble getting Hamas and other rejectionist groups to sign on to the Oslo deal that he had reached with Israel five years earlier.

The truth is, I don’t know how ironic it really is. When the Israeli government was trying to sell the peace process, the Palestinians, under Yasser Arafat were actively engaged in terror against Israel. Things have changed a little and Yasser Arafat is dead, but his successor Mahmoud Abbas doesn’t advocate terror the way his mentor did. However that hardly means that his actions are those of someone who is promoting peace and reconciliation.

Abbas, for example, made a point of meeting with and honoring terrorist, Samir Kuntar on his release from prison.

So what did Abbas do in Beirut? Well, we know one thing he did. He met with the demonic Samir Kuntar, one of the terrorists released to Hezbollah in exchange for the bones of kidnapped Eldad Regev and Ehud Godlwasser. Recall only one of his crimes: Kuntar is the luminary who smashed the skull of a 4-year-old girl while also murdering her father. He was welcomed by hundreds of thousands of cheering Beirutis, not an inaccurate picture of the gruesome politics now overwhelming the Arab world.

In a number of ways Abbas’s PA still denies Israel’s right to exist in its media

The denial of Israel’s right to exist has been repeated unabatedly in the PA – Abbas controlled – media, even since the Annapolis Conference one year ago. In contrast to Abbas’ pledge at Annapolis to promote co-existence, the message emanating from the PA to its public on educational documentaries, children’s programs and music videos is that all of Israel is “Palestine”.

It is unlikely that children who are brought up with this conceptual framework will ever recognize Israel as a legitimate state and neighbor.

and in its maps

Once again, we see that the definition of “Palestine”, according to “Palestinians,” is whatever territory Israel happens to control at that point in time. It has nothing to do with age-old conflict nor does it have anything to do with historical facts – the desire for a Palestinian Arab state is simply the desire to destroy the Jewish state. Otherwise, they would be pining for much of Jordan.

The Palestinian Arabs have not the least compunction about publicly declaring their desire to see Israel destroyed, using huge signs, in full view of tens of thousands of people. (This is not even mentioning the Fatah logo, the maps shown in schools, and so on, which all echo the same desire to annihilate Israel.)

In reality little has changed. The Palestinian leadership will make noises about wanting peace but its actions will show its true intent. It used to be that the Palestinians would tell the world how much they wanted peace, now they’ve changed their audience. Even though Netanyahu ceded Chevron when he was Prime Minister last time, Abbas and company have portray him as being “anti-peace.” The one thing Netanyahu did was to insist – though the Clinton administration regularly undercut him – that the Palestinians abide by their signed agreements. Apparently though that’s the equivalent of being against “peace.”

If Abbas really wants to convince Israelis of his commitment to peace here are some low cost actions he could take:
1) Petition the International Committee of the Red Cross to allow the Magen David Adom to be an internationally recognized symbol.
2) Prevail on the Arab League to stop condemning Israel in the UN and other international fora.
3) Push to cancel the Durban II conference or at least to have it focus on real racism instead of Zionism.
4) Actually change the Palestinian Charter to come into compliance with the terms of Oslo – and publish the new Charter.
5) Change the textbooks to include Israel and acknowledge Israel’s existence.
6) Do the same in the publicly supported art.
7) Stop trying to reconcile with Hamas.
8) Stop demanding the release of violent terrorists.

I figure I’ve probably left off a few other. I’m open to suggestions. But if Abbas did all these things, I suspect he’d convince a lot more Israelis of his good intentions than by some lame advertising campaign.

Of course he won’t. Palestinian nationalism isn’t about reconciliation with Israel, but about perpetuating a grievance.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

11/17/2008

Names will never hurt me – the double standard

Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Israel, Media Bias, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas, Rahm Emanuel, Salam Fayyad — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Recently a number of bloggers got bent out of shape by comments made by incoming Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel’s father,

“Obviously, he’ll influence the president to be pro-Israel. Why wouldn’t he? What is he, an Arab? He’s not going to be mopping floors at the White House.”

Time Magazine:

But that does not mean that Rahm Emanuel, or Barack Obama for that matter, can easily ignore the fact that Benjamin Emanuel recently said a nasty thing about Arabs in the Israeli press. This is from the Jerusalem Post’s account of an interview Benjamin gave after news of his son’s appointment to the Obama administration was announced:

Samir Kuntar’s friend, Dion Nissenbaum:

Emanuel’s appointment upset some in the Middle East who fear that Obama’s new gatekeeper and White House alter-ego will be unquestioning in his support for questionable Israeli policies.

And his dad’s comments only aggravated things.

Worst of all, Helena Cobban’s Just World News, used the opportunity to accuse Rep. Emanuel, not so subtly, of dual loyalty.

But what I as a US citizen want to be assured of at this point is two things:

1. At any point that the interests of the US and the current government of Israel might diverge, can we be assured that all members of our president’s staff are acting 100% in the interests of the United States? and

2. Can we be assured that the president is getting the widest range of excellent, relevant, and fact-based advice from all his advisers in the tricky and very sensitive realms of Mideast policy?

The ensuing firestorm ended when Rep. Emanuel apologized for his father’s remarks.

While I was originally jarred by what he said, I’m in agreement with Daled Amos and In Context, I don’t think that Dr. Emanuel’s comments were intended the way the AADC and its apologists alleged. He wasn’t suggesting that Arabs ought to be washing floors, but that his son had influence (he wouldn’t be washing floors) and that he’d be pro-Israel (he’s not an Arab.) The two statements were conflated by the anti-Israel crowd who were already suspicious of Rep.Emanuel because he was born in Israel.

But what to make of these following incidents.
Meryl notes that at least week’s Saudi sponsored Interfaith conference Western educated, liberal Palestinian PM, Salam Fayyad was guilty of an omission.

The Palestinian Prime Minister, yet another so-called moderate, managed to speak at the UN interfaith conference about how holy Jerusalem is to the world’s major religions—and utterly leave out Judaism.

In Context points out (not for the first time) that the Palestinians under the jurisdiction of “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, sentenced one of their own to death for helping Israel fight terror attacks.

And finally there’s the moderate, Abbas himself who took to threatening Israel this past weekend. But as Elder of Ziyon points out, this ought not to be so casually dismissed:

Which goes to show that the PLO letter to Israel at Oslo that solemnly promised to abandon violence was not worth the paper it was written on. And brings up the question that people are afraid to ask: what is to say that any “peace agreement” will not be torn up as well?

I’ll admit, that I’m happy that the Washington Post and New York Times, as far as I can tell ignored Dr. Emanuel’s remarks. They were, at worst, clumsy. But even if they were meant as (mis)construed, Dr. Emanuel is not a person of influence in the new administration. Absent compelling evidence, It should have had no bearing on his son’s ability to do his job. The outpouring of outrage is more a reflection of the sentiments that only Helena Cobban was honest (and vile) enough to express openly: that somehow support of Israel is de facto proof of dual loyalties.

This is especially apparent when those in authority in the PA continually express their support for conflict with Israel and deny Israel’s basic right to exist. That doesn’t upset the likes of Helena Cobban, Jake Tapper, Michael Scherer or Dion Nissenbaum at all. Denial of the very premises of a peace settlement by the Palestinians is a matter of course, not worthy of comment, but the slightest hint – no matter how specious – of pro-Israel leanings is a matter of overblown concern. This isn’t simply a matter of being critical of Israel, but of anti-Israel, if not antisemitic feelings.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

11/13/2008

The new Abbas is the same as the old boss

Filed under: Gaza, Hamas, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas, Yasser Arafat — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

The guy being promoted as the great “moderate” hope of the Palestinians remembers his maximum leader quite fondly.

During the memorial, held at Abbas’ Mukataa compound in the West Bank city of Ramallah, the Palestinian president said, “The path of the shahids – Arafat, George Habash (founder of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine) and (assassinated Hamas spiritual leader) Sheikh Ahmed Yassin – is the path that we cherish; it is aimed at upholding the Palestinians’ nationalist and sovereign resolutions.”

Elder of Ziyon notes that Abbas’s hankering for dead terrorists, is nothing unusual.

But Ynet also notes:

The memorial underscored the growing divisions between the West Bank and Gaza. The West Bank is ruled by Arafat’s successor, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. Gaza is run by the Islamic militant Hamas which seized the territory in 2007.

You could say that. It was illegal to commemorate Arafat’s passing in Gaza.

The first event was scheduled for Monday in Rafah and was supposed to combine three issues: Arafat’s memory; a protest over the siege of Gaza and the closing of the border crossings; and support for rapprochement talks between Hamas and Fatah being held in Cairo. Officially, all the canceled demonstrations were not under Fatah auspices but were being arranged by a coordinating committee of all PLO member organizations. In any case, the organizers of the Rafah rally were summoned by the police, held for a few hours and then asked to sign a statement they would not organize any activities or they would be fined. Some signed and others refused. The organizations have canceled all their demonstrations, though Fatah made no official announcement.Printers were also ordered not to print any material related to Arafat or his pictures without approval.

When will the international Palestinian sympathizers start protesting this blatant effort to stifle the nationalist feelings of the Palestinians?

Other cherished memories of Arafat are at Israelly Cool, Elder of Ziyon, Scrapple Face (h/t Elder of Ziyon), and Boker Tov Boulder.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

10/20/2008

Abbas the messenger boy?

Filed under: Iran, Israel, Syria — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

Both the Hashmonean and Shira Bat Sarah noted this story in comments.

The first mention was in Ha’aretz:

U.S. President George W. Bush has apparently offered his Syrian counterpart, Bashar Assad, to press Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights if Damascus promises to cut its relations with Iran, the Kuwaiti newspaper al-Jareida reported on Friday.

According to the report, Bush made the offer in a handwritten letter transferred to Assad by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.

The second was in Ynet:

“In the letter, Bush suggested finalizing the agreement within several weeks, before the US presidential elections, in order to push the Middle East peace process, an achievement the president will be able to proudly present before leaving the White House in January.”

The same source added that the delegation accompanying Abbas on his visit to Syria “was unaware of the letter or its details, and the US insisted that this be carried out secretly and far away from the official channels.”

The newspaper went on to report that the American ambassador to Damascus was not informed about the issue as well.

I’m not familiar with all the protocols of diplomatic contacts but this seems highly irregular. While I’ll acknowledge that in many ways President Bush has been a disappointment when it comes to Israel, this suggests that he has totally rejected deeply held beliefs that have held sway over much of his term in office.

Why would anyone trust a secret letter to Abbas, someone whose own standing is somewhat in doubt? Wouldn’t such a message be given to a Syrian envoy rather than to another (nominal) head of state?

And of course Abbas or someone close to him would have a reason to fabricate this letter. They’d be suggesting that Israel ought to deal with Syria – and by extension, Abbas – before it is forced to. This news story seems to be taken from David Landau’s “rape” fantasy.

Joshua Landis, not someone I’d usually quote, also finds the story incredible.

The following Haaretz report sounds completely untrustworthy. How could Abbas and his entourage be “unaware of the content of Bush’s letter,” for Assad and yet the Palestinian who has presumably leaked the contents to Haaretz was in the know? How could Jack Khoury publish something that sounds so improbably silly?

He writes that Ha’aretz has retracted the story, but links to the original article.

Like I wrote above, President Bush has been something of a disappointment regarding Israel, but promising to pressure Israel over the Golan in order to wean Syria away from Iran seems a bit much. And the claim from Abbas or someone near him is just not credible.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

10/07/2008

Abbas at the abyss

Filed under: Israel, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

Secretary Rice is apparently planning to celebrate the first anniversary of the Annapolis summit with – another summit. Shmuel Rosner describes this proposed summit as maintenance as opposed to a desperate, ill fated and misguided attempt (like Taba in 2001) to reach a final agreement.

A summit in November is unlikely to provide a definitive answer as to which of these assessments is closer to reality. Nevertheless, Secretary Rice can make a strong argument for such a summit. She’ll argue that this event should not be seen as a last-minute attempt at reaching an agreement in the mode of Clinton’s Taba talks (following the collapse of the Camp David summit in 2000), but rather as a maintenance measure.

Aside from the success the PA has had in enforcing the law and order in Jenin, David Hazony writes that perhaps what’s motivating Mahmoud Abbas, is a sense of mortality.

Why now? Probably because for the first time, his regime is under a direct threat from a Hamas overthrow. According to reports, Fatah is preparing a major anti-Hamas assault in the West Bank, which comes on the heels of Hamas’ own threatening to repeat its successes from Gaza in the rest of Palestinian territory. In other words, things have gotten so bad for him that he has realized how much he really needs Israel and the support of major powers.

Meryl points out that Hamas is using the law to help their takeover attempts.

Hamas, the terrorist group that took over the Gaza Strip in a wave of violent attacks that included throwing bound Fatah members off buildings, rocketing civilian homes, and resulted in over 100 dead Palestinians, including, of course, women and children—yeah, that Hamas is pretending to care about the legitimacy of a law that they never followed in the first place except to put their people in place to take over.

I wonder though, if there’s another factor that’s motivating Abbas.

Findings of the third quarter of 2008 indicate continued slow decline in Hamas’s popularity while Fateh’s popularity remains stable as it was during the second quarter. Similarly, findings show a slightly wider gap between the popularity of President Abbas compared to that of Ismail Haniyeh in favor of the former. Positive evaluation of the conditions of Palestinians in the West Bank remains higher than that of conditions in the Gaza Strip. This applies to overall conditions as well as those of democracy and human rights. Findings show also significant opposition to Hamas’s military entry into Shijaiah in the Gaza Strip in early August.

Surprisingly, the good government terrorists are alienating their constituents. Too bad we don’t hear more about this in the press.

I don’t trust Abbas. He continues to be a terrorist sympathizer and I suspect he was always was more involved in terrorism than his apologists allowed. I don’t know where this will lead, but it’s better if Israel has one less front that it has to defend. And despite the apparent improvement in his support, he remains a weak leader. Still a practical maintenance meeting probably will cause less harm than an all out effort to bridge the unbridgeable gaps.

So is Abbas motivated by fear or confidence? At this point I don’t know that it matters.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)

09/16/2008

Nothing succeeds like Abbas

Filed under: palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 8:00 am

Daled Amos focuses on one aspect of Dennis Ross’s latest, A Mideast Crisis to avert.

In a nutshell, Daled Amos points out that Ross’s argument that the West ought to bolster Abbas because he’s better than the alternatives, is a very weak argument. (Read the whole thing.)

Of course Ross believes this as a true believer in peace processing, which is premised on the outdated belief that Fatah is moderate regardless of the endless examples of terrorism, extremism, corruption, and bad faith demonstrated by Fatah over the past fifteen years. Daled Amos focuses on this paragraph from Ross.

She [Rice] should identify the options in advance, line up Arab support for Abbas staying in office — something that should not be hard to do since Arab leaders are likely to fear both a Palestinian leadership void and the prospect of Hamas filling that void — and then finalize the approach with Abbas.

Ross is a bit behind the times. Not only don’t Arab leaders fear Hamas filling the void they’re actively preparing for it:

For Hamas, of course, the Jordanian move is welcome toward dialogue, since it seems to represent the gradual acceptance by the Arab political mainstream of its growing power among the Palestinians. This acceptance derives not from ideological factors or sentiment: pragmatic, pro-Western, monarchical Jordan and Islamist Hamas with its links to Iran could not be more natural adversaries. Rather, the move points to a de facto acceptance of the fact that Hamas’s rivals in the Palestinian camp are too weak to dislodge it, and that no one else seems keen to take on this task.

I don’t advocate engaging Hamas, but propping up Abbas after his term expires will only reduce American influence. Better to leave bad enough alone and see if someone reasonable emerges to succeed Abbas. But there may be no good solutions here.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments Off

08/05/2008

Bad bets

Filed under: Gaza, Israel, palestinian politics — Tags: Mahmoud Abbas — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

I*Consult reflects on the recent rescue of a number of Fatah loyalists from Gaza who were saved by Israel over the weekend. He points out that Israel was simply doing something it had done a number of times before and casts the effort in a positive light.

Israel Matzav writes that this is an ill-conceived effort to prop up a weak (and undeserving) ally.

IDF reserve officer Yoel Tzur accused the government of ordering an ‘idiotic’ rescue when it ordered IDF soldiers to risk their lives to rescue the Fatah-affiliated Hilles clan, which was fleeing Gaza on Saturday. According to Tzur, the rescue was not a ‘humanitarian’ act, but was an attempt once again to prop up the flimsy government of ‘moderate’ ‘Palestinian’ President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen.

Fatah’s refusal to receive the members of the Hilles clan is being spun:

Mr. Abbas ordered nearly 200 fighters from his own Fatah faction back to Gaza, insisting that Fatah must retain a presence there. Gaza has been controlled by Hamas since a violent takeover in June 2007.

Fatah is not ready to write off Gaza, and Mr. Abbas also fears that Hamas there could export rebellion to the West Bank, which Fatah still dominates.

This is, of course, only spin. It’s hard to see how 200 Fatah terrorists could hold any sway over thousands of armed Hamas terrorists.

Marred by a single gratuitous swipe at Israel, Fugitive Peace portrays this flip flop as Abbas making another bad bet on Mohammed Dahlan.

At any rate, bad tactical mistake by Abbas to backtrack. His most reliable ally in Gaza, the Hillis clan, must now feel like it has no backing from him. This makes Fatah’s foothold in the strip even weaker than before, and it makes Abbas more dependent on Dahlan.

So Israel is betting on Abbas who has now shown weakness by turning to Israel to aid his allies and then betraying those allies, ostensibly to strengthen his position in Gaza. In all likelihood this makes him appear increasingly weak, undermining his own standing in Ramallah.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Comments (1)