Western Policy on Israel-Palestinian Peacemaking Will Only Produce Humiliating Failure

By Barry Rubin

It’s truly remarkable about how international diplomacy on the Middle East, especially Israel-Palestinian issues, is so out of touch with reality. Consider the Quartet’s response to the mess at the UN. The proposal is for Israel-PA talks to start within a month, both sides to present proposals on borders and security within three months, and to reach a final agreement by the end of 2012.

This is insane. The premise here is that the PA is really eager to negotiate a compromise agreement with Israel. Everything that’s happened in the past three years—indeed the last 18 years since the Oslo agreement was signed—shows the exact opposite. The PA spent a year building its campaign for unilateral independence at the UN precisely to avoid negotiating with Israel at all.

Why then create a Western policy that is not only doomed to fail but certain to fail in the most obvious and humiliating way? The Palestinians won’t negotiate in a month, they won’t rush to present any proposals in three, and they certainly won’t reach a peace treaty in a year. It looks like the PA will reject the whole proposal—a step for which they will pay no penalty but in fact will get more rewards and concessions, and thus will be encouraged to ignore the West even more.

The dumbest possible thing to do is to put a strict time limit on talks when your spoiled and rejectionist “client” doesn’t want to cooperate. The outcome will make the PA look very bad but “fortunately” the media and Western governments won’t point that out. Instead, the PA will run out the one-year deadline, then complain that Israel is at fault and doesn’t really want peace. and then urge speedy Western concessions to the PA and pressures on Israel.

Could anything possibly be more predictable? Perhaps the only possible explanation is that the U.S. government, UN, and EU (I doubt the Russians do so) believe their own propaganda. They really think the PA can’t wait to make a deal if only Israel is forced to negotiate and some more concessions are offer. Haven’t they learned anything?

In addition, perhaps in a time when claimed victimhood is the only measure of what is just, morale, and proper for foreign policy, the Western governments can’t get out of the rut of seeing the Palestinians only as victims. This requires the West to “help” them escape victimhood as fast as possible. Instead, the Palestinian leadership’s goal is the “old-fashioned” concept of total victory and turning their adversaries into total victims.

They don’t want to cease being “victims”; they want to start being conquerers. Consequently, the Western governments think the Palestinians are in a hurry to improve their lot while, in fact, they are patient in seeking instead to grind Israel into the dust.

Meanwhile, veteran Fatah leader Abbas Zaki has openly explained that the whole UN gambit is an effort to get an independent state as a step toward wiping Israel off the map. If Western journalists, experts, government official, and various “peacemakers” understood how this truly represents the Palestinian position a lot of money, time, and lives would be saved.

Since Friday's Statehood Request, Palestinian Actions Show They Have NO Desire To Make Peace

(Note there are two videos in this post...if you can't see them please click here) 

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas got a standing ovation from the UN General Assembly after his speech asking the body for a unilateral declaration of Statehood on Friday. Since the mission of the United Nations is to maintain peace throughout the world, the members of the UNGA must be convinced that the Palestinian Authority, President Abbas and his ruling party Fatah are ready to make peace.

Sadly, just about every action the PA President and his Party has taken since Friday morning indicates their continuing lack of desire to negotiate a peace settlement. Even worse the mainstream media is reporting none of it.

• Action One: Abbas' request for statehood did not ask for a return to the 1949 armistice lines commonly known as the "pre-1967 borders," he asked for a return to the original 1947 UN Partition Lines.  

This is what the Abbas request letter said about borders:

This application for membership is being submitted on the Palestinian people's natural, legal and historic rights and based on United Nations General Assembly resolution 181 (II) of 29 November 1947 as well as the Declaration of Independence of the State of Palestine of 15 November 1988 and the acknowledgement by the General Assembly of this declaration in resolution 43/177 of 15 December 1988.

The only one of those documents he refers to which speaks to geographic boundaries is resolution 181, the original UN Partition plan.  In that document the boundaries looked like this: 

A man serious about peace would not have made that demand.

• Action Two: Obama and Netanyahu are Scumbags. Continuing the Palestinian Tradition of saying one thing to the non-Muslim world and another to everyone else,  when Abbas was speaking to the UN, a  trusted adviser and member of the Fatah Party central committee was saying something else (note Abbas is also the head of the Fatah Party). On the Al Jazeera Arabic language network Abbas Zaki not only expressed his hatred for the American and Israeli leaders, but explained that a return to the 1967 boarders was just a first step.

The settlement should be based upon the borders of June 4, 1967. When we say that the settlement should be based upon these borders, President [Abbas] understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go.

If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end.

(Source: MEMRI)

• Action Three-"Abbas high-tails out of Dodge" In one of the more dramatic parts of Netanyahu's UN Speech, he offered to begin negotiations right away:

In two and a half years, we met in Jerusalem only once, even though my door has always been open to you. If you wish, I’ll come to Ramallah. Actually, I have a better suggestion. We’ve both just flown thousands of miles to New York. Now we’re in the same city. We’re in the same building. So let’s meet here today in the United Nations. Who’s there to stop us? What is there to stop us? If we genuinely want peace, what is there to stop us from meeting today and beginning peace negotiations?

And I suggest we talk openly and honestly. Let’s listen to one another. Let’s do as we say in the Middle East: Let’s talk “doogri”. That means straightforward. I’ll tell you my needs and concerns. You’ll tell me yours. And with God’s help, we’ll find the common ground of peace.

Rather than run to make peace, Abbas "high-tailed it out of Dodge" and went home (and when he got home there were demonstrations of love and peace).

Source 0f and More Pictures at Challah Hu Akbar

• Action Four-No Quartet Talks! The International Quartet (The EU, UN, Russians and Americans) made a new proposal to resume peace talks:

the Quartet proposed the following: a “preparatory meeting” between the parties within a month to agree to an agenda and a “method of proceeding in the negotiation.” The two sides will commit that the objective is to “reach an agreement within a time frame agreed to by the parties but not longer than the end of 2012.”

Israel said yes, the Palestinian Authority said NO

Today is just the third day since the Palestinians asked the UN for a unilateral non negotiated acknowledgement of Statehood.  Unfortunately everything they have done during the past three days indicates they have no desire for peace. None of this will ever be discussed in the mainstream media, or recognized by the UN.  Their interests are described in this video from Latma TV:

If The Palestinians Want Peace Why Do They Honor Mass Murderers, and Why Does The West Fund Their Hatred?

Those "peace-loving, moderate" terrorists of Fatah, run by Palestinian Authority's (PA) President Abbas, claim to the world they are looking to make peace with their Israeli neighbors. They are even trying to get the United Nations to declare them a state, to allow them into the community of nations. The truth is the moderates do not run the PA, it is the radicals who still run Fatah, its ruling party.

Witness the fact that the PA almost nothing has been done to prepare the Palestinians for a compromise peace and two-state solution alongside Israel. In fact Jews and Israel are demonized and terrorists are honored. In schools, children are taught that the anti-Semitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true and there are TV programs glorifying those who participated in mass-murder. The latest glorification is of the people who aided in the Sbarro bombing which killed fifteen people a little more than 10 years ago.

Terrorist Ahlam Tamimi has been described as the person who drove drove the suicide bomber to the Sbarro pizza shop in Jerusalem in August 2001. But that is an understatement. On the day of the massacre (9th August 2001), she personally transported the bomb (10 kg) from a West Bank town into Jerusalem, concealed inside a guitar case. Taxi cabs brought her and an accomplice by the name of Al Masri, a young, newly-religious fanatic, to an Israeli security checkpoint and from there into Jerusalem. To reduce suspicion, they dressed as Israelis and the bomb was not detected. Tamimi, who inspired, planned and engineered the Sbarro attack, personally led her "weapon" - Al Masri - to the target she had carefully selected at Jerusalem's busiest intersection. The target was a pizza restaurant, selected because it was located in the heart of Jerusalem and on a hot summer vacation afternoon it would be teeming with women and children. Tamimi instructed Al Masri to wait fifteen minutes before detonating the explosives to give her sufficient time to flee the scene safely. He followed her orders. As to this being (as some journalists have implied) an act of momentary madness or lack of sound thinking, take into account that a short time prior to Sbarro attack, Tamimi carried out a 'dry run', placing an explosive inside a downtown Jerusalem supermarket (Hamashbir Lazarchan) which exploded causing damage but resulting in no injuries. According to a journalist I met who had interviewed her some years ago, she is a charismatic and influential woman who played a central role in Neve Tirza, until now the prison for Palestinian Arab female security prisoners. And, he told me, a monster.

 15 people were murdered in the attack, 7 of them children. Muhammad Wael Daghlas planned the attack and sent the suicide bomber, and is currently serving 15 life sentences.

For the tenth anniversary of the bombing, the PA TV program In a Fighter's Home honored Daghlas by visiting the home of his family. And During the visit, they honored the driver with special greetings and praise to Ahlam Tamimi:

"We, [at] the program In a Fighter's Home, send best wishes of loyalty to Ahlam Tamimi. We wish her freedom - she and [the rest of] our glorious female prisoners. Special wishes to you, Ahlam, from the program In a Fighter's Home and from the program team, from the home of the heroic fighter prisoner, Muhammad [Wael Daghlas]. You both belong to the same group."

This is the horror  the "moderate" Palestinians honor:

On August 9th 2001, 15 people were killed, including 7 children, and about 130 were injured in a suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in downtown Jerusalem. Concealing the explosives in a guitar case which he had carried with him into Jerusalem, the terrorist entered the restaurant just before 2 PM and detonated the bomb. The 5 kg.-10 kg. bomb, which was packed with nails, screws, and bolts to ensure maximum damage, completely gutted the restaurant, which was full of lunchtime diners.

That's just the cold hard facts, this is what happened from someone who was there:

Her eyes, I think, will stay with me forever. Imploring, beseeching, full of so much sadness. I think the shock of where and how she was, was sinking in. I can't begin to describe all that was in those eyes.

Yesterday; Thursday, August 9th the 20th of Av, on my way to work, I found myself walking down Yaffo street. Hungry, I decided to stop and grab a quick bite... at Sbarro's Pizza.


In the past 5 years I have frequented this establishment exactly twice. Walking into Sbarro's there is a larger area for sitting in the front, but the back looked a bit cooler and quieter, so I decided to grab a seat in the back. That decision saved my life.


Waiting on line, when they brought me the baked zitti I asked for, it was cold. So I asked the woman behind the counter if she'd mind warming it up. "Ein Ba'ayah", no problem, she said with a smile. I will always wonder if that was her last smile on earth... A couple of moments later, a fellow from behind the counter came to the back with my baked zitti. Then he started to speak to someone at one of the tables... That baked zitti saved his life.


At about 2PM, I both felt & heard a tremendous explosion, and day turned into night. And then the screaming began. An awful, heartrending sound; the sound of people coming to terms with a whole new reality, of people not wanting to comprehend that life has changed forever. Those of us sitting in the back were spared, but I was afraid of panic, so I started yelling at everyone to quieten down; not to panic. The ceiling looked like it might cave in, but there is always the danger of a second explosion, detonated on purpose shortly after the first... But then I smelled smoke, and was suddenly afraid the restaurant mightbe on fire. So we started climbing our way through the wreckage to the front.

Would there be another explosion? Would the roof collapse? Were we making the wrong decision, climbing through? There are moments that last a lifetime... There are no words to describe what the front of Sbarro's Pizza looked like in the immediate aftermath of that explosion. A woman was lying near the steps to the back. Her eyes were staring straight at me, following me. So full of pain and longing, sadness and despair. I dropped down becide her trying to ellicit a response to see if she could speak. And then I watched the life just drain out of her. I tried to get a pulse, to no avail. She died there, on the steps in front of me. She was lying by the table I had decided not to sit at...

There were bodies everywhere, and those images are in my mind; they won't let go. A child's body under the wreckage; a baby-carriage; limbs and a torso; A woman holding a motor-cycle helmet and screaming next to a person on the floor who had obviously been someone she was with... And then the mad rush to help the ambulance and emergency crews get the wounded out. They were obviously afraid of a second bomb, so there was no medical effort inside beyond getting the wounded on to stretchers and out. A religious Jew missing at least two limbs in tears and shock; what do you say? "yehiyeh Be'Seder" it'll be all right? Will it?

I happened to sit a bit to the left as you walk towards the back, and so the wall behind me shielded me from the blast. Another fellow whom we went back in to get wasn't so lucky. Sitting only 5 or 6 feet to my left, he caught the full force of the blast and was thrown in the air. When we got him on the stretcher he was bleeding profusely and was missing a leg... There are no words to describe what that man's hand, clenched around my arm, felt like. He just kept looking from me to his leg and back again. I started saying Tehillim ...

So many mixed emotions fill my head today. I came home last night and gave each of my children a very long hug... But there are so many families today who are waking up to the reality that life will never be the same. 17 funerals with friends and families saying goodbye to those they loved so, whose only crime was a desire for a slice of Pizza on a beautiful Jerusalem afternoon... 

From A Personal Account of the Bombing, by Rabbi Binny Freedman

The names of the dead are:

• Giora Balash, 60, of Brazil
• Zvika Golombek, 26, of Carmiel
• Shoshana Yehudit Greenbaum, 31, of the U.S.
• Tehila Maoz, 18, of Jerusalem
• Frieda Mendelsohn, 62, of Jerusalem
• Michal Raziel, 16, of Jerusalem
• Malka Roth, 15, of Jerusalem
• Mordechai Schijveschuurder, 43, of Neria
• Tzira Schijveschuurder, 41, of Neria
• Ra'aya Schijveschuurder, 14, of Neria
• Avraham Yitzhak Schijveschuurder, 4, of Neria
• Hemda Schijveschuurder, 2, of Neria
• Lily Shimashvili, 33, of Jerusalem
• Tamara Shimashvili, 8, of Jerusalem
• Yocheved Shoshan, 10, of Jerusalem 

In the intervening ten years the murderers who perpetuated this evil act have been honored many times by the supposedly moderate Palestinian Authority. They are the role models of this supposedly peace loving people.

When the father of one of the victims, 15 year old Malka Roth spoke in front of the the UN nothing was done to condemn terrorism.

Such is the way the world has appeased terrorism.

When Yassir Arafat started on his murderous rampage in 1964 (three years before the 6 day war), he was treated like the animal he was.  Then slowly through a combination of Arab Oil power and the world's continued hatred of Jews, the murderous rampage was treated with appeasement, and the Islamic world was taught that terrorism is a legitimate means of political expression.

The Sbarro bombing was not the first of these horrible murders, or the most deadly. A little over a month later another terrorist attack, this time in the United States captured the world's attention, and the United States finally became actively involved in the war against terror. After 9/11 for the first time the US treated a terror attack in Israel an act of war against civil society in the world (at least until the Republicans lost congress in 2006 when things began to revert).

After election day 2008, under the leadership of new President Barack Obama the US seemed to revert back to the pre-9/11 mentality.  This President does all he can to force Israel to make one-sided concessions to "moderates" in Fatah who continue refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.  He does all he can to force Israel to make one-sided concessions to a Fatah who still promote as heroes, mass-murderers who blew up a Sbarros pizza place in Jerusalem.

There are those who say the horror of 9/11, and the war on Islamist terror, was caused by the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and they are correct, but not in the way they think.

In 2001 Bin Laden and al Qaeda didn't give a damn about the Palestinians.  But  the years of Palestinian Terror appeased by the world, rewarded with more aid and political power for Arafat, Abbas and their pack of terrorists lead to the homicide bombing of Sbarros, the 9/11 attacks and the Islamist terrorist attacks happening all across the world.

Sadly the countries that felt the horror of Islamist terror attacks on their own soil, including the United States, continue to appease the terrorists.  Islamist hatred is fed with dollars and euros.  They continue to close their eyes to the fact that the "Palestinian problem" is all about the Western World, funding a people who are being taught by their leaders that blowing up innocent men, women and children having a slice of pizza, is a heroic act.

Understanding Hamas, A Detailed Assessment

By Barry Rubin

What do you have to do to be recognized as a revolutionary Islamist group using terrorism, backed by Iran (and now probably a radicalized Egypt), seeking to wipe Israel off the map and kill the Jews? It isn’t easy. People keep trying to make you into something else: incipient moderate? Multifaceted debating society? Insisting that you just don’t really mean it?

Such is the case with Hamas. Every day—in speeches, articles, violence, mosque sermons, and media, Hamas makes its positions absolutely clear. And every day someone in the West just doesn’t want to believe it.

Now Hamas has formed an alliance (of convenience?) with the Palestinian Authority (PA), run by Fatah and governing the West Bank. It’s a remarkable situation—or would be anywhere outside of the Middle East. 

After all, Hamas won an election, made a deal with the PA, and then staged a coup to take over the Gaza Strip that included shooting dead wounded Fatah fighters in hospital. Fatah and the PA regularly repress Hamas on the West Bank. So why are they “working together”? The PA wants to show unity to the world; Hamas hopes that it can take over the PA. 

Is it true that “as older leaders of Hamas claim some degree of moderation, younger radicals refuse to give up violence?” Not exactly. First, there is no real division along age lines. Nor is it all but merely some leaders of Hamas who “claim” some moderation. 

But what’s important is that word “claim.” They do not claim it in Arabic, they do not claim it when talking to their people, and they do not claim it on their television stations or their debates with the PA and Fatah. They only claim it when they are talking to Westerners, usually reporters or sometimes diplomats. In other words, it is just a public relations’ exercise. 

What about the “Salafi-Jihadist” groups? Clearly, there are some differences, often relating to external alliances. Hamas is a Muslim Brotherhood group; the dissidents sympathize with al-Qaida. Yet they don’t pose any serious challenge since Hamas is far stronger. Hamas also uses them as deniable purveyors of attacks on Israel, assaults that Hamas can allow but also deny. The most important non-Hamas group, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, very much plays that role.

There has been some effort to set up a distinction between Hamas, as the relative moderates, and the new small groups as the radicals. This would legitimize Hamas as protecting everyone from the real extremists. But the problem with these other groups—and that includes al-Qaida—is that they are too tactically inflexible. They only use violence rather than base building; reject elections; and never pretend to be moderate. 

Thus, while these groups can stage terrorist attacks or violence, they are not the real threat. Unlike the Muslim Brotherhood, or Hamas, or Hizballah, they cannot take over whole countries. And if in the Gaza Strip they ever do challenge what Hamas wants to do, they will be slapped down without mercy. That’s not because Hamas is moderate but because it will accept no rival. 

Indeed, one reason why salafi-jihadist groups have not been successful among the Palestinians is that there is already a strong Islamist organization—Hamas—which can combine the nationalist and religious cards. Among the Palestinians, Hamas are the Salafists and Jihadists. Who needs any alternative?

The article states that “a generation of Hamas leaders, now mostly in their 60s, that wants to deal, that's willing to agree to establishing a Palestinian state within Gaza and the West Bank as defined by the Green Line, the ceasefire line that separated Israelis from Jordanian and Egyptian forces until June, 1967.”

But this is misleading, as the article goes on to explain. For whenever these Hamas leaders discuss such an idea they make absolutely and explicitly clear that this is a temporary measure, a temporary truce, designed to get a state that can be used as a platform for destroying Israel. The PLO accepted such a “two-stage strategy” more than 35 years ago but no one thought that was moderate at the time. 

Who needs “radicals” when you have Hamas. Incidentally, the same arguments can be applied to the Islamic Republic of Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt or any number of other militant groups. There is always someone even more radical. But the most extreme of the extreme simply are not good at building a mass organization, in part because they are so much on the edge.

There is another assumption made in dealing with Hamas that is also very dangerous. It is presumed that the PA will moderate Hamas. Yet it is more likely that Hamas would radicalize or take over the PA. Many times before, it has been seen around the world that highly disciplined groups with a clear ideology have the advantage of looser, corrupt and ill-defined rivals. 

But Hamas is also more dangerous precisely because it is more flexibly clever. The naïve super-radicals want to convert the Gaza Strip into an imitation of Taliban Afghanistan overnight. Hamas leaders understand, however, that they must go step by step so as not to antagonize the population so much as to lose power or to show the West their true intentions so much that it might do something about the danger Hamas poses.

Thus, Ghazi Hamad, Hamas’s deputy foreign minister, explains the situation in the article: "No one is more experienced in resistance than Hamas. No one has more martyrs…..Resistance has cost Gaza a lot of lives and a lot of damage. We need to evaluate each situation" before waging resistance.’

What he’s saying here is that Hamas isn’t moderate, it just isn’t stupid. Compare Iran and Afghanistan, for example, the Islamic republic of Iran has known—even while sponsoring terrorism and subverting neighbors—how to be cautious and when to be brutal. The regime is still in power after more than three decades. The Taliban was foolhardy and adventurous, getting involved in the September 11 attacks against the United States. Its leaders are now living in caves.

At the end, the question is asked: “Which side of Hamas will prevail?” But aside from interviews given in English for the express purpose of fooling people there is no evidence that there are two sides of Hamas.

The Toronto Globe & Mail should be praised by seriously studying this issue, at a time when many newspapers in other countries increasingly “dumb down” their coverage. But the question remains how Hamas should be understood.

The advisor on counterterrorism to President Barack Obama once explained that Hizballah couldn’t be terrorists because it included lawyers. But who says that a revolutionary Islamist movement must merely be drooling terrorists saying, “Kill, kill, kill!” Even the Nazis weren’t like that and neither were the Stalinists. Of course, there are intellectuals and doctors, teachers and engineers, involved in the movement, as in all revolutionary Islamist movements. So what? 

Quickly, however, in such discussions there is a felt need to discover a spectrum of views when no significant differences exist, or at most they are purely tactical emphases. For example, an article in the Toronto Globe & Mail says that Hamas has “disavowed suicide attacks in recent years.” In fact, they have claimed many such attacks. They might disavow certain specific attacks that are inconveniently timed. That isn’t moderation it is political cleverness. 

That article notes: “Hamas-backed militias regularly rain rockets down on targets inside Israel.” Yes, but so does Hamas itself. Other militias have been used as fronts since Hamas’ defeat by Israel in 2009 so that Hamas can pretend it isn’t violating the ceasefire. Yet this is a thinly veneered trick since Hamas verbally supports the attacks, does nothing to prevent them and never punishes them afterward. Compare this to the bloody crackdowns of Hamas—as discussed in the article—when it really does feel its power and policy challenged.

Another important misunderstood point made in the same article says, “Hamas members remain the elected representatives of a large chunk of the Palestinian people, placed there by a fair exercise in democracy.” That is true as far as it goes. But many people think Hamas governs the Gaza Strip because it won an election. First, it won an election, then it made a coalition deal, then it seized power by force. 

In stating the usual juxtaposition, the article compares Hamas, “committed to the destruction of the Jewish state,” with Fatah and the PA, “moderate and secular.” While there is certainly truth in this distinction it is also dangerously misleading. For it suggests that these two groups are like oil and water. Yet while there are hardline and very pious forces in Fatah, there are no moderates and secularists in Hamas. Thus, Hamas can appeal to a lot of Fatah supporters but not so much the other way around. 

The article states, “It would be unrealistic to think that Hamas will fade away.” Absolutely right. But it is more possible that it will win control of the Palestinians altogether. True, as the article correctly states, people in the Gaza Strip have a lower living standard than those in the West Bank living under PA rule (mainly because the latter receive high levels of international aid). But is that enough to sustain Fatah?

Suppose an independent Palestinian state is established after an agreement with Israel and internationally supported. What would happen if some time later Hamas seized power by force, won an election, or formed a coalition with some younger Fatah cadre to rule. It would tear up the agreement with Israel—as is about to happen in Egypt—and return to the conflict with itself much stronger and Israel weaker than is true at present. Such a scenario is a very realistic one.

Even short of that, Hamas would maintain that it had the right and duty to attack Israelis (whether or not it publicly claimed responsibility for doing so).whenever that was politically profitable. Is a Fatah or coalition government really going to stop them from doing so? 

Meanwhile, Hamas preachers and teachers would be telling young people that being a jihad fighter or a suicide bomber is the most properly Islamic and wonderful thing they could do with their lives. How easily could moderates compete with such appeals, especially when—as we have seen elsewhere—moderates would be subject to intimidation or even assassination.

But actually the world should continue to shun Hamas for reasons having nothing to do with Israel. The Middle East today faces a huge internal conflict. That is the region’s main feature. The battle is between Islamists—be they Afghan, Iranian, Arab, or Turkish—and a much-varied set of nationalists, liberal reformers, and traditionalists. The mix is different in every country.

This battle is similar to the great struggles in Europe once caused by Communists and fascists. It is not merely a matter of Islam or Muslims because most of the people on the anti-Islamist side are also Muslims who think they are just as properly Islamic as the revolutionaries.

Giving international recognition or help or legitimacy to Hamas helps the radical Islamist side. It entrenches the Gaza Strip as a revolutionary statelet on the Mediterranean Sea, backed by Iran, using terrorism, dedicated to genocide against Israel and to subverting all of the relatively moderate Arab states.

It indoctrinates children to be future terrorists, to hate and kill Jews, expels Christians, subjugates women, and supports the murder of gays. In addition, it advocates the expulsion of Western influence from the region and opposes virtually all Western interests. A Hamas regime is bound to return to war again in the not-distant future. The group’s radicalism will kill any hope for a peace process between Israel and the PA. Hamas in power means a totalitarian state using torture and ferocious repression.

And it also furthers the revolutionary Islamist movements’ efforts to dominate the Middle East and spread their doctrine and power to Western countries.

A handful of carefully tailored English-language interviews by some Hamas leaders (while they and others speak very frankly and in a totally opposite way in Arabic) changes nothing. The group’s actions speak louder than such words. Their television shows directed at children tells more than soothing words meant to lull the West to sleep. 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Why The Palestinian Authority-Hamas Deal Is So Dangerous

By Barry Rubin 




The Fatah-Hamas decision to reconcile, form a joint Palestinian Authority (PA) government and hold elections seems to be a short-run maneuver that might have some very long-range consequences.

Fatah's motive seems to be to have a united front when it goes to the UN in September to seek recognition of a unilateral declaration of independence. One of the arguments used to criticize its standing to make such a move has been the fact that the PA does not rule almost half the territory it is claiming.

For Fatah, it is also a popular move. A recent poll by Near East Consulting says that 89 percent of Palestinians want the dispute settled and believe it will help the Palestinian case at the UN.

But while September is the minimum time for this agreement to last, May 2012 is the maximum timeline. That is the approximate date set for new elections and the side that expects to lose would probably pull out of the pact. Hamas has no intention of yielding control over the Gaza Strip to a Fatah-dominated PA, while Fatah feels the same way about letting Hamas extend its control over the West Bank.

Which of the two groups is more popular? Ironically, it may be true that more Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, fed up with Hamas’ repressive rule and destructive policies, would vote for Fatah candidates than last time; while West Bank Palestinians, fed up with Fatah's continuing corruption, might give more votes to Hamas.

On its side, Fatah's election slogan could be that the PA has delivered relative prosperity; Hamas offers ideological and religious fervor.

There are, however, three big problems that the merger--if it is at all applied in practice--creates for Palestinian politics and for the peace process.

First, radicalization. Hamas has more advantages for radicalizing Palestinian public opinion, the PA, and Fatah than Fatah has for moderating Hamas. Hamas is a disciplined organization with a clear ideology. It has a strong social welfare component--albeit only to build its political base--and has not been caught in high-level corruption. Moreover, it can play the card of Islam and of militancy against Israel and the West.

There is also the question of whose cadre is better. Fatah might always be linked to the word "moderate" nowadays, conjuring up the image of responsible middle class gentry, while Hamas people seem like wild-eyed fanatics. Yet in practice, the average Fatah cadre often have a thuggish, opportunistic character while Hamas' men are austerely puritanical. At least when they aren't in power--as on the West Bank--they might seem more attractive on the street level.

True, Fatah has on its side West Bank prosperity and providing the people with greater stability. But it has not delivered a state. In the past, Hamas’ talking points have done better than those of Fatah.

Yet the issue is not mainly what the people think but what the activists think. Fatah people have defected to Hamas and Islamist ideas have developed within the Fatah militias. Groups that exist to fight admire the most energetic, effective fighters. The younger generation of Fatah people has worked alongside Hamas and doesn’t bear the hatred of its elders toward a rival group.

In addition, Hamas people can now demonstrate openly in the Fatah-ruled West Bank while Fatah rallies are banned in the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip


Hamas’ sponsors have done better than Fatah’s sponsors. In fact, Fatah has no real sponsors in the Middle East. In contrast, Hamas is backed by Iran, Syria, the Muslim Brotherhood, and now the Egyptian government. These forces seem to Middle Easterners on both sides to be getting stronger at the expense of the United States and the West.

The second factor is the Western perception of the PA. The PA’s image is not enhanced by bringing into the government as an equal partner an organization rejecting peace with Israel and advocating genocide while extolling and committing terrorism. On top of this, Hamas is a client of Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood--not great strategic friends of the West. Both Hamas and Fatah representatives met with the Muslim Brotherhood's leader who told them that the winds of change blowing in Egypt placed the goal of liberating Palestine within reach.

Will Western governments be willing to give money to a regime that includes Hamas? One whose classrooms will teach that Israel should be destroyed and the Jews are subhuman? One very possibly containing a movement that continues to fire rockets and mortar shells into Israel? Already many congressional Democrats are calling for an aid cut-off.

The Obama Administration will ignore them but might there come a point when it can no longer do so?

Finally, there is a factor that exacerbates the first two points: How will this alliance affect PA policies?

A PA that has absorbed Hamas as part of the government will not be able to negotiate seriously with Israel. Indeed, set on the unilateral independence strategy, it will not want to talk seriously with Israel. On no issues--borders, security guarantees, Jerusalem, refugees--will it be able to make the tiniest compromise. It will certainly not reduce incitement to violence or terrorist attacks.

There is also the question of structural changes within the PA. Many within Fatah already want to get rid of Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, the man mainly responsible for the West Bank’s economic progress. Joined by Hamas partners, they would almost certainly succeed in forcing Fayyad out. If there are Hamas ministers, they will use their positions to bring their cadres into the government and turn the PA in a more radical and Islamist direction.

It should be stressed that for the PA to be a real partner for peace, one of the most important tasks would be to reinstall its (or, perhaps one might better say, Fatah’s) hegemony over Hamas. This is not at all what is happening now. Either the partnership will break down or it will make Hamas stronger, the PA more radical and, hence, unsuccessful in producing peace, prosperity, or progress toward an actual Palestinian state.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMediahttp://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.

Palestinians: Poll Shows Overwhelming Support for Islamism

By Barry Rubin

I’m always a bit wary of using public opinion polls in the Middle East because much depends on the day the poll is done; the way questions are worded; and the fact that in authoritarian societies ruled by dictatorial regimes people don't necessarily speak their mind.

In this poll, by Near East Consulting, there are some peculiar results that make it appear skewed toward Fatah and against Hamas. This may have to do with the fears of those polled. It is revealing that—I don’t think I’ve ever seen this before—the official Fatah-controlled Palestinian press agency, Wafa, distributed a story on the poll because it fits with their political line.

But that fact makes the following two points all the more remarkable, even shocking compared to past, comparable polls:

--Asked to give their primary personal identity, 57 percent said Muslim; 21 percent, Palestinian; 19 percent, human beings; and only 5 percent said Arab.

This says something important about the steep decline in Arab nationalism but brings into question Fatah-style Palestinian nationalism, too. One can see oneself primarily as a Muslim and still support Fatah and the Palestinian Authority, but this upward trend also indicates of the growth of thinking likely to lead people toward backing Hamas in future.

--Asked what government system they preferred in future, about 40 percent said they want an Islamic caliphate. In addition, 24 percent seek a system like those in Arab countries, and only 12 percent prefer one like that in European countries.

While defining what an “Arab system” means is ambiguous, it is reasonable to presume that means an Arab nationalist dictatorship since at this moment virtually no Arab country is a democracy.

When asked whether they support Fatah or Hamas the results are so overwhelmingly pro-Fatah as to make one suspicious. It is safer for someone living in a dictatorship to discuss general principles rather than oppose that government in conversation with outsiders. Yet, again, one would expect a Fatah supporter to highlight a Palestinian or Arab identity rather than a Muslim one.
What this poll, and other indications, suggests to me is that the potential constituency for Islamism (Hamas) is at least 40 percent, for Palestinian nationalism (Fatah, Palestinian Authority) just over 20 percent, and for democracy about 12 percent. Most of those who expressed no opinion would probably support the PA to give it an election victory but that cannot be assumed.

Note that there is no real organized moderate democratic party in the entire Palestinian political spectrum. The findings remind us of just how small the base is for any modern democratic state in the sense that is understand not only in the West but also in much of Asia, Africa, and the Latin America.

Remember that in most of the rest of the Third World, even where dictatorship exists, a moderate democratic state is a popular aspiration.  It may not be what people have but it is what the majority wants. This really doesn't seem to be true in the Middle East.

These figures also imply that Hamas is more likely to recruit current Fatah supporters than vice-versa.

There are hints here of what would happen in completely free elections in a future Palestinian state. They do not incline Israel—or anyone with good sense—to rush to support the creation of such a state, especially now that Fatah and Hamas are once again united.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/http://www.gloria-center.org/. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is

Former Obama Adviser Robert Malley Still Making 'Uncle Yassir' Arafat Proud

Perhaps the most damaging blow to Middle East peace in recent history is the Hamas/Fatah "unity deal" announced by both terrorist parties. Fatah, run by PA President Mahmoud Abbas tries to project a respectable image to the non-Muslim world this leads them to tone down the terrorist activity a bit and even try to negotiate with Israel every once in a while. Peace has never been an objective of Fatah--just the appearance of wanting peace so the terrorist group can remain the favorite-child of liberal governments, including ours.

Hamas throws up no smokescreens about its objectives--a worldwide caliphate and the destruction of Israel as the Jewish state. By all accounts Hamas will be the more powerful force in this arrangement. Almost immediately after the deal was announced, Hamas representatives..

...emphasized that the new unity agreement, reached on Wednesday, did not require them to accept the two-state solution or to engage in peace talks with Israel.

They also stressed that the interim unity government that was expected to be established soon would not conduct peace negotiations with Israel.

Even the "moderate" PA President Abbas admitted that peace was no longer a goal. On May 3rd he said to the the Al-Aharam newspaper:

"There is no need to demand that Hamas recognize Israel. The PA will not request that it do so."

Why should Abbas demand Hamas recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland when his own Fatah party doesn't? By any measure, this deal is a danger to peace, the U.S. interests in the area, and our ally Israel.

Here in the United States, some of the Palestinians' most useful propaganda tools are already taking advantage of the progressive media already heralding the agreement as the best thing for peace. Take, for example, Robert Malley. For those who are unfamiliar with Mr. Malley, he is a former adviser to Barack Obama, and a second-generation Israel hater. I do not believe the sins of the father is visited on the son, but this son has chosen to follow in his dad's footsteps.

Malley grew up in France, where his Egyptian-born father, Simon Malley, and New York raised mother, Barbara (Silverstein) Malley, were radical publishers of a controversial magazine about Africa and the so-called Third World. Malley’s parents were rabidly anti-Israel and counted Yasir Arafat as a personal friend. Indeed, Arafat was among those “leaders” (for want of a better word) who had intervened with the French government to readmit the Malley family to France after they had been expelled for their radical activities.

Malley's personal pedigree not only includes a host of anti-Israel articles, but the former aide to Bill Clinton is the only American privy to the Clinton peace efforts to blame Israel for their lack of success. Everyone else, including the former President, said that Yassir Arafat walked away from a "sweetheart" deal. He was also believed to be the chief source for an article by Deborah Sontag that whitewashed Arafat's role in the collapse of the peace process, an article that has been widely criticized as riddled with errors and bias.

Formerly a member of Obama's campaign team, Malley was supposedly fired by the campaign for having secret meetings with Hamas, but he was a willing sacrificial lamb to make Obama look good. Now Malley serves progressive puppet-master George Soros as he is currently Program Director for Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group, an international think tank funded by the "dude of spooky" himself.

Most of the people who read Malley's recent piece in the Washington Post pushing Hamas as an important peace partner are probably unfamiliar with his background as an apologist for Palestinian terror. But a close reading of the op-ed reveals his propagandist methodology.

Twice before the world has sought to prevent the Islamists from governing — after Hamas won the 2006 legislative elections and, a year later, when it formed a coalition with Fatah. Twice, the world made a mess of things. The balance sheet is unequivocal: Hamas remains entrenched in Gaza; Fatah is no stronger; and, without elections or genuine pluralistic political life, democratic institutions in the Palestinian territories have rusted.

Sometimes facts are just inconvenient things. What Malley refuses to mention that that it was Hamas that threw out the "democratic institutions" with a military operation that threw Fatah out of Gaza. And a major reason Hamas and Fatah haven't reconciled before was Hamas' desire to perpetuate its violence against Israel--omething it has done very well, when you consider the fact that since Hamas took over Gaza, it is responsible for launching over 5,000 missiles, mortars, etc., into civilian areas of Israel.

The only reason Fatah is ready to unite with Hamas despite its more blatant violence, is that in September they intend to get the United Nations General Assembly's help in unilaterally declaring an Arab Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital. They need the cooperation of Hamas to get this through.

The most persuasive case against unity has been that it would dash prospects for Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Even then, this was never a particularly convincing argument. For it was hard to imagine a fractured national movement reaching a peace agreement, let alone implementing and sustaining it. Palestinian reconciliation was more likely a prerequisite than an obstacle to peace.

But now? The peace process is lifeless. Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have not met in months. Palestinians, convinced that they will get nothing from Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and little from the United States, are focused on getting the U.N. General Assembly to endorse their call for statehood. In this context, Netanyahu’s insistence that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas choose between peace with Israel or peace with Hamas is the emptiest of threats.

Oh boy, Uncle Yassir would be so proud. Again Malley is not being truthful. Since Netanyahu became prime minister, he as called for a two-state solution and constantly called for negotiations. When Netanyahu enacted his ten-month building freeze, PA President Abbas waited nine months to agree to talk and used the scheduled end of the freeze to stop talking. More than once during the past few years, Abbas has refused to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and has insisted in order for there to be peace millions of Palestinians must be allowed to move into Israel as to negate its Jewish majority.

Giving credit where it is due, Malley does have one thing correct: with the "Arab Awakening" throughout the Middle East, existing regimes are more likely to be replaced with governments even more radical.

For Hamas, Mubarak’s fall likewise was decisive. An Egyptian government more in tune with public opinion coupled with a more powerful Muslim Brotherhood — Hamas’s parent organization — augurs a far warmer bilateral relationship. Growing unrest in Syria is another factor. The embattled Syrian regime, having offered safe harbor to Hamas’s leadership for a decade, wants to collect the rent — through overt signs of loyalty and support. Hamas has officially backed the regime but tepidly, out of reluctance to alienate its power base of Palestinian refugees and conservative Sunnis in Syria and beyond. Hamas calculates that even without immediate regime change, the Syrian regime inevitably will be transformed, its brutal crackdown having eroded much of its domestic credibility and regional influence. Tilting toward Cairo, a more important actor in the long run and more legitimate among Hamas’s constituency, was the safer bet. Accepting the Egyptian-brokered deal was a first step.

However, he uses that analysis as a stepping stone for more misinformation:

For political and legal reasons, the Obama administration cannot embrace a unity government (his subtle allusion to that nefarious Jewish Lobby)

....Beyond discomfort at Cairo’s improved relations with Hamas, is it not in America’s interest to see an influential Egypt critical of Israel yet committed to its peace accord; whose relationship with the United States is strong but not servile, and whose stances are more consistent with domestic and regional opinion?

Even under Mubarak, Egypt has always been critical of Israel. The difference we are learning (but Malley ignores) is that it is the "new" Egypt which is critical of Israel and wants to trash the peace. It is not in America's interest to have one Islamist terrorist group to begin to influence an Egyptian government on the precipice of being run by the radical Muslim Brotherhood.

Might this not weaken Iran, which benefited from using Mubarak’s regime as a foil, and whose regional weight will deflate with the rise of a credible Arab counter-model? How would attempts to torpedo the agreement affect relations with this new Egypt — and, more broadly, with a newly assertive Arab public? Is Washington better off if Hamas feels compelled to drift from Tehran and Damascus toward Cairo? If the Muslim Brotherhood plays a more central role in Egypt, how might it influence Hamas? How might U.S. engagement with the Brotherhood influence that influence?

OK let me understand this for a second. The Muslim Brotherhood considers Iran its role model. Hamas and Iran have been allies for a very long time. If Hamas drifts away from Tehran toward Cairo, isn't it drifting back toward Tehran? I know, Malley is just trying to confuse me--either that or trying to mislead the reader.

Then again, that is Malley's modus operandi--confuse, distort and lie, I guess that's what makes him the prefect Middle East guru for an organization "owned" by George Soros. Sadly, when a progressive newspaper such as the Washington Post publishes an op-ed from people like Mr. Malley, whose anti-Israel opinion matches their editorial philosophy, they feel no need to explain his background. This omission is a disservice to the newspaper's readers.

There Are No Unicorns, No Monsters Under Your Bed, and PA President Abbas' Party is Not Moderate

Growing up we all believe what we want to. For years my son believed that there were monsters under his bed at night, my daughter believed that a unicorn would show up for her to ride away. Both of them believed in the tooth fairy (there was one of those, but it was just me in a costume). Part of the growing process is that we realize that these childish myths are not real by any means.

Surprisingly there is one childish myth that many otherwise intelligent adults cling on to. That's the myth that the Fatah Party run by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is moderate. People ignore what Abbas' party says and does so they can cling on to the myth that he is a moderate, sadly they are just being immature. Let me suggest you are more likely to look up into the winter sky and see a fat guy with a red coat and white beard on a sled being pulled by flying reindeer, than see a Moderate Member of the Fatah party.

Allow me to give you an example. During the most recent Fatah convention (2009), a senior Fatah member Rafik Natsheh announced that their group will never recognize Israel, and will continue to call for war against Israel.

Fatah does not recognize Israel's right to exist, nor have we ever asked others to do so.

Fatah has never stopped performing terrorist acts against Israeli citizens, Fatah claimed credit for the recent attack in Itamar Israel where, two terrorists slipped into the house of the Fogel family, murdered both parents, two of their sons and slashed their infant daughter’s throat. Only they didn't call it Fatah.

Like most terrorist groups Fatah has a scam that governments and media buys into. Its called a "military wing." Fatah's military wing is called the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades. Whenever they carry out a new attack on innocent civilians, it is the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades who carries it out. The group is part of Fatah, takes its orders from Fatah, but because they have a different name Fatah gets a pass. It would be like President Obama getting on the television to announce that the United State's "military wing" was responsible for killing Bin Laden.

The Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades has another role, to make the more radical statements so President Abbas can preserve his role as a faux-peacemaker. Therefore Abbas did not say anything about the death of Bin Laden, he didn't have to, his "military wing" handled it for him.

They called the killing of their fellow terrorist a "catastrophe." And those who killed Bin Laden were "gangs of heretics."

"The [military wing of Fatah] Al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades announced the death of Sheikh Osama bin Laden (Abu Abdallah), and said that if bin Laden had indeed died as a Shahid (Martyr), this would not deter the resistance fighters from the path of Jihad against injustice, oppression and occupation in the world.

In their announcement, a copy of which reached MAAN [private Palestinian news agency], the [Al-Aqsa Martyrs'] Brigades said:

'The Islamic nation awoke to a catastrophe the reports of the Shahid - (Martyr-) death of the Sheikh, Jihad-fighter Osama bin Laden, in a treacherous manner, by the gangs of the heretics and those who stray.'

They continued: 'The path irrigated with the blood of its leaders is the path of victory, Allah willing. If Abu Abdallah [Bin Laden] was killed, then he merited the Shahada (Death for Allah) which he had sought, and inscribed with his blood the landmarks of Jihad, leaving behind an entire generation that follows the path of Sheikh Osama.'

They said: 'The military wings of the Jihad fighters in Palestine and outside of it, who have in the past lost many of their commanders and their men, will not stop. This has only strengthened their determination, their resolve and their loyalty to theirShahids (Martyrs), who have turned their words into a reality testifying to their honesty, and which in fact bolsters the drive and the strength of their brothers on the path to victory or Shahdada (Death for Allah)'.

The announcement continued: 'We say to the American and Israeli occupier: the [Islamic] nation which produced leaders who changed the course of history through their Jihad and their endurance, is a nation that is capable of supplying an abundance of new blood into the arteries of the resistance and is capable of restoring the glory of Islam and the flag of Allah's oneness, Allah willing.'"

Yikes, now that didn't sound very moderate to me. In fact it sounded very much like Hamas, which is recognized a terrorist group. As the NY Times reported;

Hamas officials here condemned on Monday the American operation that killed Osama Bin Laden, with Ismail Haniya, the leader of the Hamas government, calling it a “continuation of the United States policy of destruction.”

Ismail al-Ashqar, a Hamas lawmaker, described it as “state terrorism that America carries out against Muslims.”

There in itself is the reason why Fatah is more dangerous than Hamas. You see, Hamas doesn't try to hide its intentions, both its political and "military arms" (yes they have one of those also) are honest in their hatred of Israel. Fatah, on the other hand tries to show its moderation through its political arm, but its true intentions via Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades.

Sadly most of the world believes there is a difference between Hamas and Fatah, but as the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades prove, that belief should be filed in the same place as other childhood fantasies.