With today’s escalation of hostilities between Hamas and the Israel Defense Forces, this report by the New York Times has been overshadowed, naturally, by events. But it is also, in a way, complemented by them. The report discusses memos and talking points sent around by the Israeli government to its diplomatic missions around the world on the topic of the Palestinian Authority’s plans to ask for upgraded status at the United Nations.
Much of it is unremarkable. It notes that the Israeli government acknowledges that PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s plans violate the Oslo accords and constitute a unilateral breach of mutual agreements between the representative governments of Israel and the Palestinians. It also acknowledges that Israel has its own unilateral actions it can take if Abbas truly wants to go down this road. (I’ve written about “coordinated unilateralism” before; this isn’t quite what that is, but it would take a very similar form.) The Times mentions a particularly harsh memo, apparently written by staffers in Israel’s Foreign Ministry:
A second document, an internal paper labeled “draft” and written by staff members of Israel’s hard-line foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, was more explicit. It described Mr. Abbas as an unpopular, weakened leader who had grown rich from leading a corrupt authority and was heading to the United Nations in a last-ditch effort to remain in power.
A recognition of Palestinian statehood by the United Nations, it stated, would leave Israel no alternative but to topple “the government of Abu Mazen,” referring to Mr. Abbas by his nickname. Any softer reaction would be interpreted as “raising a white flag,” it said.
Well, the first part is correct, but it doesn’t necessitate the second. This was the Palestinian response:
Mr. Shtayyeh, the Palestinian envoy, said he considered Israeli warnings about the collapse of the Palestinian Authority as “empty threats.”
“Israel has a vested interest in maintaining the status of the Palestinian Authority as it is today,” he said, noting that the Palestinian security forces helped to protect Israel.
It’s debatable how much PA forces “protect” Israel, certainly, but Shtayyeh has it about right. To understand why Israel should not want the Abbas government, and thus Fatah, toppled, it’s instructive to look back at a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper from the spring of 2008, The Struggle For Palestinian Hearts And Minds: Violence And Public Opinion In The Second Intifada. The authors studied the radicalization effects on Palestinians of various political affiliations, with special regard to violent events.
They found that violent episodes are far less likely to radicalize supporters of Fatah than supporters of Hamas or Palestinian Islamic Jihad; that Israeli fatalities are much more likely to embolden Hamas supporters than supporters of Fatah; that Fatah remains the natural home for less extremist Palestinians; and that as support drains from Fatah, support drains from bilateral negotiations as the preferred method of dealing with Israel, as opposed to violence or unilateral steps.
Is Mahmoud Abbas a serious partner for peace? No, he is not. Has he done anything to change Palestinian attitudes toward recognizing Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state? No, he has not. But toppling Fatah would likely result in a more violent Palestinian leadership on the West Bank, with missiles aimed at the heart of Jerusalem and the country’s only large international airport.
Judging by today’s events, Israel probably does not want Hamas on two borders instead of one. When it comes to Palestinian leadership, we can modify what Churchill once said about democracy: Fatah is the worst choice to govern the Palestinians, except for all the others.
No eternal law mandates that Israel forever put up with genocidal enemies on its intertwined borders. n nIt is only innate Israeli/Jewish decency that has preserved the 'palestinians'. Of course, that has been interpreted by them and the world as weakness, and a tacit admission of guilt. After all, what nation would tolerate the murder and mutilation of its women and children if it was not deep down somehow guilty? n n nBut if they keep pushing, some day they may get the biblical punishment they so richly deserve. n n n
As shocking as Obama's victory was, it is even more shocking to read Mandel, who tells us however reluctantly that Israel must now work with a suit and tie version of Hamas. Since Abbas and his thugs have made it abundantly clear on numerous occasions that the only difference between them and Hamas is tactics and not goals, I see no good reason why Israel should anymore tolerate the PA than they tolerate Hamas. Learning that so-called right-wingers like Mandel now accept the PA as an inevitable Israeli partner, just underscores how damaging Oslo has been to Israel's political position.
It's not just Mandel. n nIt is Israelis of the center to left as well. n nThey have all been Stockholm syndromized, and/or also perhaps whipsawed by the ever-present threat of American displeasure, in turn driven by Arab Oil displeasure, into accepting the drip drip drip of lethal concessions and erosions on the value of Israeli life of which the acceptance of the PA as a palatable lesser evil is a manifestation. n nThe fact that a missile on Tel Aviv was a redline, but thousands on poor Negev communities were not, speaks of another unhealthy value endemic in Israeli society. n nIt is unhealthy. But there it is.
Yes, you are right but Mandel and Commentary are supposed to represent the right-wing neo-con position, so the pervasiveness of the Stockholm syndrome appears to extend across the ideological spectrum. nDead right also about the general Israeli indifference to the torrent of rockets falling on very untrendy development towns in southern Israel heavily populated by very unchic Russians, Ethopians and Moroccans. Let's hope the Gazans (really displaced Egyptians) made a tactical error disturbing the upmarket Tel Avivians who appear to enjoy special solicitude from Bibi and Barak.
Yes, I think they did make an error. n nIt seems they will pay, now. Though with Ehud Barak in charge, weakness masquerading as 'nuance' may yet save the gazan egyptians. n
Methinks you're right. The rattling of a few patio chairs and spilled cafe late in Tel Aviv just might signal an, um, tectonic political shift of, er, seismic proportions.
The PA is not a government and neither is it the best option there is, as much as it would like us to believe that. It's a ageing cleptocratic cabal of connected clans, a criminal mob of goons which takes tribute from a frightened world. n nThe dismantling of this "enterprise" would a blessing to Israel and the West, even the Arab world which is etting tired of paying homage to these expensive and distracting drama queens. Also, the collapse of Fatah and the PA doesn't mean that Hamas will inevitably fill the vacuum and even if it does, that it will remain as it is and not be changed by its new role. No matter, the new cabal under whatever name it goes by, will have lost decades of connections and will face a major disruption to the routine benefits and the established money pipeline. n nI say, book'em and bust'em Danno.
Unless the anarchy that would replace them would be even worse, in which case it might be prudent to handle the more urgent threat now, and deal with the PA later, but without harboring any delusions about them playing a constructive role. n nThey don't; but you don't clean your walls if the dirt is the only thing plugging a hole in the wall separating you from sulfuric acid.
One alternative is no one at all. There doesn't need to be a PLO or PA in so far as anyone to 'represent' them to the outside world. Their response is always the same always will be – "NO". Fair enough. Print that on a big sign and make that sign the leader of the Arabs. It's just as effective. In terms of managing their own affairs, collecting the garbage, printing bus tickets, etc…who cares? Anyone can do that.