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.
