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.