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:

Bob Beckel is Either Too Partisan or Too Lazy to Check His Israeli "Settlement" Facts

Whenever I think that Barack Obama has had his worst week ever...he finds a way to make it worse. This week began with more Solyndra revelations tying the failed Solar Panel firm's federal loan to politics directed by the Obama White House and it ended at the United Nations where President Abbas made a disastrous application for a unilateral declaration of Palestinian Statehood, which more than anything was a result of Barack Obama's disastrous Middle East policy.

According to Bob Beckel on Friday's The Five Obama's policies had nothing to do with the UN disaster, nothing to do with the fact that Abbas refuses to negotiate, and nothing to do with the fact that Palestinians refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, its all the fault of the settlements, the settlements, the settlements. To be hones I can't remember if he repeated the words "the settlements" three or four times but Beckel certainly made his point. He also proved that he is either too partisan to admit the truth, or too lazy to research recent  history, but either way he is wrong.

Allow me to explain the facts and for brevity's sake I will start with the Obama Administration.

While the Palestinian's have never accepted Israeli settlements, secession of all settlement building has never been a precondition to talks. Israel had long ago agreed not to build new communities  in Judea and Samaria but would continue to add housing units to existing communities.

During the government of PM Ehud Barak, there were direct talks and construction continued in existing communities.

It was the Obama administration's naiveté that made the settlements an issue. Hillary Clinton first demanded the freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession (a settlement freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. From their point of view Obama was telling Adult Israelis that their children could no longer live near their parents. He was also saying that a policy not accepted in the United States (allowing people of a certain faith to live anywhere they want) was OK as long as it appeased the Arab world.

It is interesting that the man who pushed for Muslims to build a mosque on Ground Zero, and for Illegal immigrants to live in Arizona, believes that Jews should be banned from living on the West Bank of the Jordan River.

Making the Settlement a cornerstone of the new administration's Middle East policy, was a major naivete-driven error by the Obama administration which was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and their constant public berating of the Jewish State. This turned the Israeli population against Obama, especially the Israeli left who would be more inclined to support a settlement freeze demand. A May 2011 Smith Poll conducted for the Jerusalem Post showed that only 12% of Israelis believe Obama is pro-Israel, 40% believe he is pro-Palestinian.

Obama's demand for a freeze of natural community growth broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration.

Obama, through his Secretary of State Ms Clinton, said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States says that the Administration is lying.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Obama-created issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used Obama’s demands to make a settlement freeze a precondition to further talks, even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Obama became president.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten month settlement building freeze in Judea and Samaria. It was approved by the Knesset and implemented on November 25, 2009 and ran till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians wasted the first 9  months of the freeze and would not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended. A fact lost on Mr. Beckel.

After the freeze ended, Abbas once again hid behind Obama's naivete, another fact that Beckel forgets. With the end of the freeze pressure was put on Jewish State to extend it indefinitely.  No one questioned the Palestinian Authority’s refusal talk for the first nine months of a ten month freeze.

The US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. And the two sides came close to a deal. Based on their experience with Obama and the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing as any oral deal with the Obama administration was worth the paper it was printed on.

The written offer never came and worse yet, the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch."

As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source has come forward saying that no such letter is on its way. United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, and contrary to reports, the U.S. did not guarantee an end to the freeze, the source said.

The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

Despite the Obama administration's bait and switch, Netanyahu tried to give the Palestinian side an "out." In early October 2010 he made a very simple offer to the PA.  If you were to recognize Israel as the Jewish State, we will extend the freeze.  As reported by Al Jazeera the answer was a resounding no:

Binyamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, has offered to renew a partial settlement construction freeze in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. 

He announced the offer on Monday, just three days after the Palestinians and Arab states gave the US a month to persuade Israel to renew a 10-month moratorium on settlement housing starts that expired on September 26.

Netanyahu's proposal met with swift rejection from senior Palestinian officials.

"The whole world holds Netanyahu responsible for what is happening in the region, after he chose to push ahead with the settlement project at the expense of an advance in the peace process. Settlement freeze is a commitment Netanyahu should respect," Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator, told Al Jazeera.

Yasser Abed Rabbo, a senior official of the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, described the settlement issue as "an aggression on Palestinian rights and land".

"What Israel calls itself is an Israeli matter that does not concern us. The two issues are not related," he told Al Jazeera in reference to Netanyahu's condition that Palestinians recognise Israel as a Jewish state.

Nabil Abu Rudainah, the spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said a return to peace talks required a freeze on settlement building by Israel.

"The issue of the Jewishness of the state has nothing to do with the matter," he told the Reuters news agency.

The Palestinian side still refuses to take that first step toward peace, recognizing the Jewish  State of Israel. And while Barack Obama was willing to destroy the prospects for negotiations by making the settlements an issue the way it never had before, he has avoided upsetting the Palestinians by demanding that they recognize the Jewish State of Israel.  Something Obama tap danced around the issue as recently as his speech in front of the General Assembly last week. Those, Mr. Beckel is what are called facts.

Its not just Bob Beckel, he is just the most annoying. The real story of a settlement freeze has been ignored by the mainstream media, Earlier this week Gretchen Carlson of Fox and Friends reported that the Administration was trying to get Israel to return to the table, despite the fact that Israel never left the table, the Palestinians did. Israel offered a ten month freeze to help the US out of a problem caused by our President's naiveté, the Palestinians ignored the freeze until it was too late, an extension of the freeze was first sabotaged by Hilary Clinton's bait and switch tactics and a refusal to put things in writing, then by PA President Abbas because he didn't want to recognize Israel.

Whether Beckel is ignoring the truth because he desperately wants to turn around the progressive Obama's fortunes, or because he is too lazy to investigate the truth it doesn't really matter.What matters is that there is a dearth of truth coming out of the main stream media, even on Fox News. I guess bias and or/laziness is bipartisan.

Obama's UN Speech Continues His Disastrous Israel Policy

They say a leopard doesn't change his spots, well neither does this President.  Those who though that the NY-9 election and recent polls would cause Obama to temper his one-sided policy regarding the Israeli/Palestinian dispute were very disappointing. It's not what he said that should be alarming to friends of Israel, its what he didn't say, namely that Israel needed to be recognized as the Jewish State.  Oh he flirted around it sometimes, but carefully negotiated around stating it, an act of appeasement to those who would destroy Israel. It is that one recognition which keeps this 40 year dispute alive (remember before 1967 Judea, Samaria were part of Jordan and Gaza was part of Egypt).

This is what the President actually said about recognition of Israel at the UN Today.

Let us be honest with ourselves: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, look out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile and persecution, and fresh memories of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are. Those are facts. They cannot be denied.

The Jewish people have forged a successful state in their historic homeland. Israel deserves recognition. It deserves normal relations with its neighbors.

Some will say "see he talked about the Jewish people, you can assume that's what he meant." Sadly in diplomacy as well as "Odd Couple" reruns, when you assume you make an ass of u and me.

The avoidance of calling Israel the Jewish State was no accident. As recently as last month the President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would never accept Israel as a Jewish State

For the naysayers who say why should the PA have to recognize the nature of the Israel. One reason is  the UN who defines it that way. The original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947,  UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States. 

Israeli Prime Minister outlined it brilliantly in his speech before Congress at the end of May. He talked about how Israel has been ready to establish a Palestinian State for decades, but there has been one hold-up.

“You see, our conflict has never been about the establishment of a Palestinian state. It has always been about the existence of the Jewish state. This is what this conflict is about....

They were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees.”

My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… "I will accept a Palestinian state." It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… "I will accept a Jewish state."

A few days before Netanyahu made his speech in the halls of Congress, President Obama gave his big Mid East peace speech. He spent much time telling Israel what she had to do, and included the controversial call for negotiations to start with recognition of Israel's return to the 1949 Armistice lines,  but  he didn’t address the fact that neither Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. 

Today in front of the UN General Assembly he made the same mistake.  

I put forward a new basis for negotiations in May of this year.  That basis is clear.  It’s well known to all of us here.  Israelis must know that any agreement provides assurances for their security.  Palestinians deserve to know the territorial basis of their state.

....We seek a future where Palestinians live in a sovereign state of their own, with no limit to what they can achieve.  There’s no question that the Palestinians have seen that vision delayed for too long.  It is precisely because we believe so strongly in the aspirations of the Palestinian people that America has invested so much time and so much effort in the building of a Palestinian state, and the negotiations that can deliver a Palestinian state.

 Again he fails to mention that the reason it has taken so long is the Palestinian refusal to accept the fact that the Jewish State of Israel has the basic right to exist. The simple truth is that with seven words, President Abbas can get what he wants "We Accept a Jewish State of Israel." Once he says that all the other issues will become much easier.

But President Abbas will not make that declaration, and President Obama is satisfied with making demands of Israel while refusing to demand that the Palestinian side make the most basic of statements. Israel cannot negotiate with someone who does not believe that it should exist.  And President Obama will never regain the trust of voters who support Israel as long as he continues to appease the Palestinians lack of this basic recognition.

Mahmoud Abbas: We Will NEVER Recognize Israel as a Jewish State -Are You Listening Obama?

Palestinian President "the moderate terrorist" Mahmoud Abbas says he will seek full membership to the United Nations next Friday. The United States has promised to veto the move making the bid unsuccessful. Keep in mind however, that it was the misguided policies of the Obama administration that helped bring us to this point.

The Obama administration's call for a settlement freeze that gave the Palestinians an excuse to avoid talks.  And it was the President's pressure on only the Israeli side that provided the PA with the confidence to bring this resolution to the United States.

Abbas is not a man of a peace, as recently as three weeks ago he bloviated about his refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish State.

For the naysayers who say why should the PA have to recognize the nature of the Israel. One reason is that its the UN who defines it that way. The original partition resolution passed by the UN in November 1947,  UN Resolution 181 calls for dividing Palestine into Independent Arab and Jewish States. 

During his big Middle East speech in May, President spent much time telling Israel what she had to do, but  he didn’t address the fact that neither Palestinian President Abbas’ Fatah party and the Hamas party refuse to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. During a press conference with British PM Cameron just a few days later, Obama repeated his omission.

“I believe that Hamas, in its own description of its agenda, has not renounced violence and has not recognized the state of Israel. And until they do, it is very difficult to expect Israelis to have a serious conversation, because ultimately they have to have confidence that a Palestinian state is one that is going to stick to its — to whatever bargain is struck.”

Recognizing Israel as a Jewish State is a larger issue than how to describe a particular nation. Once Israel is recognized as a Jewish State the Palestinian demand for a right of return for the descendants of the original refugees within the borders of Israel is resolved also. Being a democracy, if Israel allows herself to be flooded with millions of the descendants of those 1948 refugees, she will cease to be the Jewish State. Instead Israel will be just another Muslim country in the Middle East.

In October when negotiations were going on to convince PM Netanyahu to extend the Judea and Samaria building freeze, he made the offer to President Abbas to extend the settlement building freeze if the Palestinians agreed to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. Abbas replied almost imminently with a resounding no.

These omissions by President Obama are no accident. If he overtly called for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish State he would be negating the Palestinian demand for a right to return, which is why he said the “Right of Return” is something to be left to negotiation (but according to Obama the 67 borders aren't.

“These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.”

This Friday the United States is going to veto the unilateral Statehood Bid of the Palestinians.  The veto will probably be followed up with a speech by Secretary of State Clinton apologizing for the veto. "Wishy-washy is the Obama way. Its why the Palestinian Authority has been able to take advantage of the US at every turn, be it their refusal to negotiate because if Obama's criticism of Israel's settlement building, or their refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state, based on Obama's refusal to make it an issue.

The Palestinians see this American Government as weak which has given them the confidence to embarrass the US in the security counsel this coming Friday.

Sudan’s “Two-State Solution”

 by Barry Rubin


Good news from the Middle East is that rarest of all things. Solutions (however imperfect or even temporary) to conflicts there is equally rare. That’s why the creation of a new country, South Sudan, is so significant after years of strife between the northern and southern parts of that country due largely to their religious and racial differences. This development also leads to an interesting question: will south Sudan be a purely African-oriented state or will it play some part in the Middle East?

Note that most of the population of south Sudan is Christian. The Muslim north decided to get rid of the region so that it could pursue its Islamist ambitions more easily and focus on repressing tribes (also Muslim) in the west.

None of the news reports on south Sudan, however, pointed out the earthshaking aspect of its creation. After all, this is a state that has come into existence because it is Christian, a sort of parallel to Israel. It is too poor, remote, and non-Arab for Islamists and Arab nationalists elsewhere to care about and they are preoccupied with other things right now.

Yet to the north, in Egypt, Christians are facing growing persecution. Will the rest of the Middle East ignore south Sudan or will it become a target in future for jihad and hatred, as an illegitimate entity allegedly created by Western imperialism that must be destroyed?

Another interesting question is whether Christians elsewhere will show any interest in the new country and try to help it survive and prosper. In political terms, it seems that Western Christians spend much of their time either supporting or bashing Israel. The beleaguered Christians of Egypt, the Gaza Strip, Iraq, Lebanon, Sudan, and Pakistan are ignored. Now that there’s what is in effect a state created as a safe haven for Christians will that change any attitudes?

Finally, the Obama Administration probably deserves a large measure of credit for the Sudan solution. It cozied up to the dictatorship but in this case, a contrast to other situations, actually achieved some positive result.

By the way, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is totally against the two-state solution in Sudan, greeting the occasion with a particularly antisemitic, anti-American cartoon. Back in 2009, when the Sudanese regime was committing mass murder–in real life, not like the false accusations made against Israel–PA leader Mahmoud Abbas urged all Arabs and Muslims to give complete support to the Khartoum government.

But the PA isn’t at all being inconsistent since basically it is also against a two-state solution of the Israel-Palestinian issue as well.


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 Middle East editor and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://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 articles published originally in places other than PajamasMedia can be found at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

Why There's No Peace, Who's Responsible, and What Obama Doesn't Understand

“We cannot negotiate with those who say, `What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable.’"   --President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

By Barry Rubin

You can read for yourselves Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the U.S. Congress. Both on regional issues and the Israel-Palestinian question he was quite clear. His speech was vastly superior to those by Obama not just because of the policy content but because he deals with regional realities that the president ignores or just gets completely wrong.

But what I want to talk about here is a remarkable juxtaposition that no one else seems to have noticed. If you understand this article, you can understand all of the problems of the Middle East. If you don't, please go mess up the lives of people elsewhere.

To set up this point I must first quote extensively from Netanyahu’s speech. He said:

“This is the land of our forefathers, the Land of Israel, to which Abraham brought the idea of one God, where David set out to confront Goliath, and where Isaiah saw a vision of eternal peace. No distortion of history can deny the four thousand year old bond, between the Jewish people and the Jewish land.

“But there is another truth: The Palestinians share this small land with us. We seek a peace in which they will be neither Israel’s subjects nor its citizens. They should enjoy a national life of dignity as a free, viable and independent people in their own state. They should enjoy a prosperous economy, where their creativity and initiative can flourish.”

So this is a classic Western—indeed a classic liberal Western—formulation. We have our rights but we also respect your rights. Let’s find a win-win situation that benefits everyone.

Netanyahu added:

“They [the Palestinians] were simply unwilling to end the conflict. And I regret to say this: They continue to educate their children to hate. They continue to name public squares after terrorists. And worst of all, they continue to perpetuate the fantasy that Israel will one day be flooded by the descendants of Palestinian refugees."

In a moment, watch Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas prove Netanyahu's first sentence to be true.

“My friends, this must come to an end. President Abbas must do what I have done. I stood before my people, and I told you it wasn’t easy for me, and I said… `I will accept a Palestinian state.' It is time for President Abbas to stand before his people and say… `I will accept a Jewish state.'"

Remember that challenge.

“Those six words will change history. They will make clear to the Palestinians that this conflict must come to an end. That they are not building a state to continue the conflict with Israel, but to end it. They will convince the people of Israel that they have a true partner for peace. With such a partner, the people of Israel will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise. I will be prepared to make a far reaching compromise.”

In other words, once the Palestinians really acknowledge—which they have not done—the Jewish connection to the land Israel will know they are a partner for peace and make more compromises.

Now, here’s the part nobody noticed. Abbas answered Netanyahu!

In a major speech for “Nakba Day,” that is the Palestinian day of mourning that Israel was ever created in the first place, Abbas said:

“We say to him [Netanyahu], when he claims - that they [Jews] have a historical right dating back to 3000 years [BC] - we say that the nation of Palestine upon the land of Canaan had a 7000 year history [BC]. This is the truth, which must be understood and we have to note it, in order to say: 'Netanyahu, you are incidental in history. We are the people of history. We are the owners of history.’"

Do you understand?

Netanyahu said: We have rights; you have rights. We recognize yours and when you recognize ours we can have peace. Your refusal to recognize our rights—to demand total victory for yourself (which means Israel’s disappearance)—makes peace impossible.

And what did Abbas (whose name cannot appear in the American media without the word “moderate” being attached to him) answer:

Well, we don’t recognize that you have any rights. All the rights belong to us! You are just a passing breeze that will become extinct and you are of no importance.

So that’s the bottom line. Even in the year 2011--as happened in the year 1948--even a relative moderate like Abbas simply cannot bring himself to say in Arabic: “Let’s share this land in a two-state solution.”

Ironically, Netanyahu is taking a liberal and flexible position while Abbas is taking a reactionary, imperialistic stance. Talk about accepting the “other!”

And yet not a single professor in any university class, not a single journalist or expert in the mass media will raise or even report that point. President Obama won’t pick up on it to chide the Palestinians. Nobody will start calling Netanyahu moderate and peace-seeking while saying that Abbas is extremist and peace-rejecting.

Nevertheless, what simpler and more graphic example could anyone want?

Now you know why peace is impossible. It isn’t because Israel won’t go back to the 1967 borders. It’s because the Palestinian leadership still believes and tells its people that Israel has no right to exist.

PS: Abbas's history is of course rubbish. There is no connection between ancient Canaanites--who don't go back anywhere near that far--and modern Arabs. Since the Canaanites weren't Muslims, Abbas is acting as a pure opportunist since no Arab nation accepts such pre-Islamic connections any way.

But I love that phrase he said, "We are the owners of history." In other words, we can make up any lie we want and to Hell with the consequences.

The Jewish Temple? Never existed in Jerusalem!

Did we miss a chance to have our own state in 1947? Never happened!

Is it crazy to go on fighting for decades hoping to destroy Israel rather than make acompromise peace now? No alternative. Israel doesn't want peace.

If you are so oppressed and suffering why aren't you in a hurry to negotiate with Israel and make a deal? No! First, they must give us what we want beforehand. We're in no hurry at all because what good is a deal if we have to give up the hope of total victory in the future!

Abbas has told us everything we need to know about who doesn't want peace. And here's the reality of the Palestinian Authority position (not to mention that of its partner, Hamas): If you can't have peace without accepting Israel's permanent existence then it is better not to have peace at all.

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/ 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.