Powered by WebAds

Wednesday, May 11, 2011

Abu Mazen blew it

I don't agree with everything Jonathan Schanzer writes in the analysis discussed below.

Specifically, I don't believe that Yasser Arafat was sincere in his acceptance of the State of Israel in 1988, and I don't believe the 'Palestinian charter' was ever legally amended in 1998. Among other things.

But overall, Schanzer is right. 'Moderate' 'Palestinian' President Mahmoud Abbas Abu Mazen, has chosen Ismail Haniyeh, Khaled Meshaal and Hamas over American support (and yes, it probably would have been support - and it certainly would have been support in a second Obama term, God forbid) for a unilateral declaration of a 'Palestinian state.' And in doing so, Abu Mazen has once again caused the 'Palestinians' to exercise an opportunity to miss an opportunity.
Abbas likely feels that he has little to lose. For all of Obama’s talk of settlement cessation, he has not been able to deliver any of the disputed lands that Palestinians claim for their own. Meanwhile, Obama has not been able to bring about his stated desired outcome in a host of neighboring countries: Libya, Iraq, and Egypt are obvious examples. Hamas appears to be on the ropes, with its sponsor Syria in crisis. In addition, Hamas doesn’t want Fatah to declare a state without its inclusion. This was at least part of the calculus behind Abbas’s decision to reconcile with Hamas.

Abbas, however, appears to have made three critical miscalculations:

First, Fatah’s partnership with Hamas simply cannot last. Apart from their enmity toward Israel, the two factions agree on almost nothing. Even at the heralded unity conference, Abbas and the Syria-based Hamas leader, Khaled Meshal, refused to sign their names to the deal; proxies signed for them. The two factions also continue to arrest and obstruct loyalists from opposing parties.

This brings us to the second point. Israel has been defending the West Bank from Hamas advances since the civil war in 2007. With Hamas now a political partner to Fatah, Israel’s leadership could refuse to come to Fatah’s defense. Thus, Israel’s military, intelligence, financial, and civic support to the West Bank may soon dry up. At the very least, the Palestinians should brace for a significant drop in support.

Finally, even if the U.N. recognizes a unilateral declaration of Palestinian statehood, a lack of U.S. support will create political and financial challenges that may smother the state in its cradle. Already, 29 senators have asked Obama to turn off the spigot of aid to the Palestinians. And even in the Obama era, with the United States showing less assertiveness on the world stage, the Palestinians need America and its robust foreign policy assistance.
That's 29 out of the 57 DEMOCRATS in the Senate. We can add to that most of the 41 Republicans and two Independents meaning that it is likely that two thirds of the Senate - or more - favors cutting off aid to the 'Palestinian Authority.'

The work of the (comparatively) righteous is done by Heaven.


Labels: , , ,


At 8:48 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

Had Abu Bluff seriously pursued peace talks with Israel, he might have been in a better position to gain an independent state, with Israel's blessing and America's backing.

By allying himself with Hamas, he has foiled that prospect and rendered a UN vote of support for Palestinian independence essentially the diplomatic equivalent of a "moral declaration." And it leaves the Palestinians worse off than they were before.

While it can be said Jews have made mistakes, they have not been irretrievable ones. Above all, the Palestinians' enmity towards Israel will ensure there will be no peace in our lifetime.

At 8:50 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

Carl - a correction.

There are 51 Democrats in the Senate and 47 Republicans.

You were using the last election result.



Post a Comment

<< Home