President Obama and his cheerleaders in the media may be fed up with Israel and its democratically elected government, but the Palestinian Authority appears to be about to take one step closer to effectively ending all hope for peace in the foreseeable future. Journalist Khaled Abu Toameh reports that PA leader Mahmoud Abbas has agreed to a key concession that will solidify the Hamas-Fatah unity pact first signed in May. The result will guarantee a strong Hamas role in the new Palestinian government that will ensure it will be impossible for the PA to agree to any deal with Israel, no matter what concessions are forced out of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or where Israel’s borders might be drawn.
One of the key holdups to a Hamas-Fatah unity government was Hamas’ insistence Abbas dump Salam Fayyad as prime minister. Fayyad is widely respected in the West for his fight against corruption, his efforts to build a viable Palestinian economy and his attempt to crack down on terrorism with the aid of U.S.-trained security personnel. According to Abu Toameh, in secret talks with Hamas in Cairo, Abbas has finally agreed that Fayyad will be forced out, setting in motion a new wave of government graft as well as making it easier for Hamas to organize itself on the West Bank. This will not only doom the Palestinians to a new era of misrule but also cut the legs out of from anyone arguing that the United States should continue to pour aid into the coffers of the PA.
As I predicted in September, the collapse of the Palestinian Authority’s foolish attempt to bypass negotiations and seek statehood from the United Nations without first making peace with Israel has strengthened Hamas. Though Israel’s critics said it was about to face a diplomatic “tsunami” from the PA’s UN gambit, Abbas was the real victim of his own ploy.
Some will attempt to blame the unity pact on Israel. They will say if Israel had only frozen settlements and given in to the Palestinians on borders and the future of Jerusalem, Abbas would not have been forced to deal with Hamas. But such assertions distort the facts. Abbas has always had a choice between making peace with Israel or Hamas. He chose the latter, because he knew the culture of Palestinian politics was such that his people would not accept any deal that recognized the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders were drawn. That is why he rejected Ehud Olmert’s offer of a Palestinian state in 2008 just as his predecessor Yasir Arafat rejected one in 2000 and 2001. It is also why he refused to negotiate with Israel even during the period that Netanyahu froze settlement building in 2010. The only way he could accept a state was by a UN fiat that bypasses recognition of Israel.
The rule of Hamas in Gaza, where it has imposed its will since a bloody coup in 2006, reflects the true face of Palestinian statehood. Though the vast majority of Israelis would gladly agree to a two-state solution that would entail great sacrifices for their country, they know allowing Hamas to replicate its terrorist state in the West Bank would only lead to an upsurge in terrorism and more bloodshed. The notion that they will agree to any concessions on land to a PA where Hamas has the whip hand is absurd.
The unity pact also demonstrates the bankruptcy of President Obama’s Middle East diplomacy. By focusing almost exclusively on trying to badger Netanyahu into concessions on the 1967 borders and settlements, Obama has only reinforced Palestinian intransigence and set the stage for Hamas to gain ground.
It should also be understood that allowing Hamas to get a foothold in the PA has implications for the region as well as the peace process. Hamas is an Iranian ally. A victory for them undermines moderate Arabs everywhere.
But it is not too late for the president to start using the considerable leverage he still holds over Abbas. Were Obama to tell Abbas that if he dumps Fayyad, he will lose every penny of the hundreds of millions of dollars he gets from the U.S. annually and that Washington will work to cut off every other avenue of aid, that would get the PA’s attention. Only by cracking down hard on the PA now is there any hope for averting a deal that will expand the influence of Iran’s Islamist terrorist auxiliaries.
Not one word about the terrorist swap? All the political power Hamas has, was given to them by the Israeli government. Hamas is bibi's best friend; it's Abas who they fear. nAs an American, I am free to criticize any government, democratically elected or otherwise. The Israeli electorate does not dictate policy of my government. nIs it OK to criticize the democratically elected US government and not the Israeli? n
"Yitzhak", you attacking Bibi from the right or from the left? According to your anti-Zionist incoherence you refuse to bow to pressure from the Zionists to criticize Fatah for making deals with Hamas–because Israel wants Hamas in power. n nhmmmmm. n nWell, "Yitzhak", the deal puts Hamas in power. n nAnd, "Yitzhak", if the "Israeli electorate" is supporting Bibi's support of Hamas then presumably the Zionists here in their States already have their marching orders to support the unity deal rather than criticize Bibi or Obama for going along with it. n nThe notion that Bibi and Israeli supporters here might *disguise* their wedge-strategy by supporting Hamas to beat up on Fatah in secret while publicly protesting the opposite remains tin-hat non-empiric fantasy. n nBecause both Fatah and Hamas, for the moment, think that a unity deal is in both their interests. n nWe'll see next week, but for now that's what they believe. n nThey don't think the deal weakens Fatah at the expense of Hamas, or Hamas at the expense of Fatah. n nThat is why it is a unity deal to begin with. n nThat is why folks criticize it; the claim is it means that Fatah has ditched it's Oslo obligations to Israel to, yes, break bread with an organization that has never forsworn liquidating Israel after the Palestinians first receive a state in Judea, Samaria, and East Jerusalem. n nThat is, the deal itself and the negotiations leading up to it, contradict the conspiracy theory that Bibi has a strategy to weaken Fatah to promote Hamas with the Shalit swap. n nThese negotiations, with their on and off again status are driven by internal Palestinian inclinations that are separate from the Shalit deal and have always been seen by Fatah and Hamas to be separate–the intermural squabbling over the Shalit deal's limited implications were expressed in Fatah grousing that more Fatah prisoners should be released. But Fatah wasn't holding Shalit, Hamas was, and the deal struck with Hamas was apolitical with no greater scope than getting Shalit home, although, yes by definition they didn't hurt the kidnappers, who got their blood ransom. n nYes? n nBut even a cracked cuckoo clock tells time correctly twice a day. n n"Yitzhak" you are on to something. n nNo, Bibi does not "fear" the dithering incompetent Abbas, cutting deals with Hamas at Abbas' expense (by the way the same implausible defense that was hastily improvised to defend Arafat against israeli retaliation–the Likud is in a secret alliance with Hamas to attack Fatah "moderates", even as it was Arafat and Fatah who were in a military and political alliance, a real one, not a fever brain fantasy of the image of a spectre of one, to butcher Jewish citizens in the Al Asqa intifadah). n nHe gave up terrorists for a variety of domestic reasons, not to hurt Hamas, or help Hamas, or hurt Fatah, or help Fatah. n nAs a matter of fact, in the Middle East that is already "yesterday's news" anyways. n nAnd Abbas and Hamas are either going to make a deal or not make a deal from the internal logic of their leaderships and their base, not because of this or that strategy from Wile E. Bibi. n nBibi really is against Hamas and really is against the deal. n nBut you know what, "Yitzhak"? n nBibi will likely continue to transfer funds to the PA anyways, with or without a deal with Hamas up to the moment–maybe–they transfer the PA to Gaza City, because Bibi and the Israeli establishment really really really doesn't want to bring back the daily management of Palestinian affairs re-occupation would bring. n nHere's another tip you might consider stapling to your tin-hat: Bibi and the Israeli establishment don't want to march back into Gaza any more than they want to march back into Ramallah. n nPresumably they believe they are reflecting the desires of their "electorate". n nWhich is why Israel is constantly maneuvering around the margins of autonomous PA/Hamas decisions, containing, embargoing, cooperating with, exchanging military actions and counter-actions along the seams–but avoiding like the dickens formally recognizing that Oslo is dead, and the peace process is dead and that a post-Oslo Israel-Fatah-Hamas three-way conflict/entente has filled that vacuum. n nWhat you see is what you get. n nThis is reality. n nAs Jackson Browne said: n n"Awake to understand you are not dreaming nIt is not seeming just to be this way…" n nThe muddled state of affairs between Israel and its near enemies (did we mention Yesha investments by Palestinian businessmen?) is not a devilishly clever Potemkin village facade hiding furtive master-plan Zionist cunning. Israel reacts to Palestinian initiatives while incrementally thickening Jewish neighborhoods in Yesha and, on the high end, attempting to shape the strategic diplomatic box. n nThis imaginary dual-loyalty trope is a sideshow, a red herring, adistraction from the hopelessly compromised lines of engagement and conflict through which Israelis and Palestinians carry on their highly mediated daily intimate enmity.
You're correct, the peace process is dead, It died with Yitzhak Rabin. I bet you popped the cork on some Don Perignon when that went down. n nAs James Brown said… n n"I live in America" n nDon't talk bad about my democratically elected president.
Palestinian unity has been discussed in the last 100 years many times with little results. The state of affairs at present is a slim es ever. Be that as it may, since the difference between Hamas and Fatah is in tactics only. It may be better to have a single clear enemy than than both such enemy and a crony partner to peace. n nIn any event it would be a mistake to ask "favors" from Obama. Netanyahu will have to promise something in return, and what is worse Obama will provide an incentive to Palestinian. Even if the discussion with Hamas fails, or if they reject Obama's demands, the new incentive, in their mind, will remain the opening for the next round of discussions with Israel. n nAt the end, the Palestinian people will have to decide what they want. If it is Hamas so be it.
"Yitzhak", repetition is not argument. You have yet to address any of the points that are being made–that Abbas and Hamas want the deal and are responsible for Oslo's latest deep freeze, not Israel. That a secret Zionist agenda to subvert Fatah and promote Hamas would support the deal as it brings Hamas back officially into the PA. That your charges of dual loyalty have nothing to do with the deal itself and are a meaningless side-issue based on the charge of a non-existent secret Israeli program to promote Hamas. That therefore Commentary is not betraying dual loyalty by asking Obama to stop Hamas and Fatah from agreeing to a joint anti-Israel program. That those critical of the deal want neither to assassinate Jewish leaders or subvert America. (Bibi may well be criticized day after next and you will come up with another anti-Jewish response to that.). That Oslo was done in by the Al Asqa Intifdah, Hamas' rejectionist takeover of Gaza, and Fatah's refusal to negotiate and end to the conflict, not by the Likud–all events that transpired well past the death of Rabin whose terms of settlement were far more draconian than the terms the Palestinians have already refused, twice. That, in any event, Bibi is not so secretly accommodating the PA, in and out of a deal with Hamas, and, so far, has showed great reluctance to cut off transfer of $. That the "peace process" is irrelevant to peace because it's timetable approach to negotiations was deepfly flawed to begin with and ignored by the Palestinians since circa 2000 de facto. That all sides may be able to prevent war without a "peace process." That you yourself seem to be either a Satmar kid with some basic misconceptions about American democracy (Presidents get, gasp! shudder! criticized) or a non-Jew masquerading under a false flag (who are the Zionists to open their mouths?) or a transplanted very left wing ex-Laborite (but your illogical posts don't read that way) not too well acquainted with life in the United States after lo these many decades. My bet is that you are a Bob Smith with a grudge. Or a kid out in Kiryas Joel with a Zionist problem. Regardless, odds are you couldn't find a backbeat if it was nailed to the side of a barn. On the one? Not too likely. n nGet yourself a brand new bag, kid.
No Obama should not stop Hamas-Al Fatah deal. If President Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, then he needs to perform something to justify it. Having Hamas allow Al Fatah to be the official spokesperson means that they will not be allowed to have their own doctrine, but instead to go along with Al Fatah in being in peace negotiations with Israel. Hamas has denounced the use of violence, recognizes the pre-1967 borders, and its leaders have either resigned or announced that they are not seeking re-election. Palestinian elections are slated for May. What could be emerging out of this, is a united Palestinian voice. Prime Ministers Sharon and Barack said that peace negotiations collapsed, because there was no negotiating partner because of rivaling Palestinian factions. If there is a united Palestinian voice, then Israel will in the spotlight on whether its settlers will be returned to the pre-1967 borders, or stay and become citizens of Palestine. The peace negotiations have been moribund for too long, it is time to start excelling them. President Obama can do so that, by enhancing Palestinian cohesion so there can be negotiations. Also, he would be doing something to justify winning a Nobel Peace Prize. n n