An article in the JPost tells of how Fatah and the PLO’s Leader Mahmoud Abbas (let’s stop pretending that he is the leader of the Palestinian people until he actually wins an election by the people- shall we?) is telling the Arab League that he is under “immense pressure.” Rarely is one of my least favorite childhood terms so appropriate, “Duh!” Here is a man whose party lost the only election that has taken place during his “Presidency” and under whose leadership, the Palestinian people have become so divided that only those entirely ignorant of the reality on the ground or who wish to pretend that reality is unimportant could consider him to be the leader of “The Palestinian People.” Abbas is the leader of the Fatah party. He is the leader of the PLO. He is the titular “President” of the Palestinian Authority. He seems to be the leader of the West Bank, but Gaza he does not lead, nor the people of Gaza. Further, one must question whether or not he represents the majority of the Palestinian people or, and this is more likely the case, if he is simply the choice of those powers whose opinion is important as to who shall represent them.
Abbas is completely surrounded by rocks with hard places above and below. He is being pressured from every direction and told to yield. Which means of course that in spite of J Street’s assurances to the contrary, Abbas cannot actually yield. He’s in no position to do so. His position is in fact so bad that he needs to avoid direct talks at all costs and so must ramp up the preconditions for such talks beyond any hope of achieving them.
Israel cannot yield on the Right of Return, Security, or on much of Jerusalem remaining under its sovereignty. Abbas really cannot yield on any of these three issues either. He’s entirely avoiding the first lest he be accused of creating another blockade in the way of peace. Any sane person knows that Israel cannot permit the Right of Return to Israel of hundreds of thousands of descendants of refugees. Besides the Palestinian state would be their supposed homeland after a peace deal. As for security, Abbas does not even control Gaza, much less speak for Hamas. He cannot pretend to negotiate security. As for Jerusalem, Abbas cannot specify any boundaries to cede when the Arab League expects him to yield none. Thus, we have insistence on the 1967 boundary, which to ears in the Arab world includes all of the Old City and most of the rest of modern day Jerusalem. This is a leader prepared to make peace with Israel? One unable to yield on any of the issues about which Israel also cannot yield? Really?
Realistically, and we need to speak realistically or we might as well not speak at all–realistically, Abbas is not in a position to negotiate with Israel. In order to enter such a position, he must be able to concede on at least parts of all three of the major issues mentioned above. While many try to read into his words such an ability, this quote from today’s JPost article betrays them:
When I receive written assurances (about) accepting the 1967 border and halting the settlement (building), I will go immediately to the direct talks.
So here we have Abbas saying that he will only enter direct talks once Israel agrees to abandon all of the Old City, which was not part of Israel in the beginning of 1967, and disregards the security problems resulting from the 1967 borders, never mind that territorial exchanges have already been an assumed part of any final peace agreement since the inception of talks. This position is a non-starter and Abbas knows it full well. If the US and others wish to see those direct talks, their only choices are to force Israel to yield on issues that will result in the destruction of the nation or to force the Palestinians to yield on ones that will result in the construction of theirs. There really isn’t much of choice, yet too many out there continue to pretend that there is. This might just perhaps be why the process is getting nowhere fast.
I’m probably not in a good position to instruct the Israelis on hasbara, but out there is someone who can and should. They deal with this fanciful “right of return” as if there were any basis at all for it, something that needs to be dealt with.
Nobody else in the world asserts or in fact has such a right, not the millions of Greeks and Turks who left Greece and Turkey after World War I, not the tens of millions of displaced persons in Europe after the Second World War and not the millions of Hindus and Moslems who went between India and Pakistan during partition. No one else claims or would be granted such a right, and that includes Greek Cypriots forced out of parts of Cyprus after Turkey’s invasion in 1974.
And especially Jews who fled Arab lands aren’t granted this right, even theoretically. It’s only the Palestinians for whom such a right is granted and for whom it becomes an obligation on others.