Abbas is negotiating with a maxed out credit card

Evelyn Gordon speculates at the end of The Purpose of Proximity Talks:

Why is the proximity-talks charade necessary? Because currently, Obama lacks both public and congressional support for moving beyond mere verbal hostility. If he didn’t realize this before, the backlash to his March temper tantrum over Ramat Shlomo would certainly have convinced him.

So he needs to up the ante by painting Israel’s government as responsible for torpedoing a key American foreign-policy initiative — one he has repeatedly framed as serving both a vital American national interest and a vital Israeli one. He could then argue not only that Israel deserves punishment but that such punishment would actually serve Israel’s interests.

To avoid this trap, Jerusalem must launch its own PR campaign in America now to put the focus back where it belongs: on Palestinian unwillingness to accept a Jewish state. For if Israel lets Obama control the narrative, the public and congressional support on which it depends may be irretrievably undermined.

Arlene Kushner gives a number of examples where Israel has failed to “control the narrative.”

The Arabs spoke about the ’67 “border” and there was no clear and immediate Israeli government retort – repeated as often as necessary – that the ’67 line was an armistice line and not meant to be permanent. By default, if nothing else, we left the impression that behind the ’67 line was where we most properly “belonged.” The flip side of this was that everything on the other side of that line was “Palestinian.”

When the Arabs spoke about “Arab east Jerusalem,” we did not forcefully clarify the fact that part of Jerusalem had a predominantly Arab population only because Jordan had thrown out every Jew, and that this very area was actually the heart of Jewish heritage. We didn’t tell our history and make our claim clear.

The Arabs have represented UNRWA as being a humanitarian agency that helps the disenfranchised “Palestinian refugees” survive until they can “return” to Israel. Did we ever energetically expose the fact that UNRWA’s rules are different from the rules for all other refugees in the world, who are managed by UNHCR? Don’t be silly.

These are all approaches for Israel’s PR.

There’s one more thing, something that Daled Amos has picked up on.

To present the appearance of a decision, Mahmoud Abbas added members of the Fatah Executive Committee to the meeting.

Fatah official Nabil Abro confirmed that there was no quorum at the PLO meeting, and that its decision had no legal standing.

It would be comparable to walking into a department store with a maxed out credit card. You could go through the motions of making purchases, but in the end when you check out, the credit card reader will inform the clerk that you are not authorized to make any purchases and he’ll send you on your way.

It’s one thing to say that these talks are designed to fail. It’s quite another when one side ensures that it will fail.

The administration’s view on the proximity talks is:

The State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, released a statement warning both sides that “if either takes significant actions during the proximity talks that we judge would seriously undermine trust, we will respond to hold them accountable and ensure that negotiations continue.”

So aside from the historical points that Israel needs to make, will Israel (and its supporters) make the point that Abbas has gone in with no standing? And if they do, will the American government “hold [him] accountable” for undermining trust?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.