What Bush Should Tell Abbas

Hon. Mahmoud Abbas, President
Palestinian Authority
Ramallah

Mr. President:

I was distressed to learn that you have ordered three days of mourning for George Habash, founder and leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). You have referred to him as an "historic leader", but to Americans he was a terrorist and murderer.

As an official of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), I trust you were fully aware of this man's criminal activities while PFLP was a major component of PLO, but in case you have forgotten them, here is a brief refresher:

1. In late August of 1970 PFLP hijacked four airliners to Jordan and threatened to kill the passengers and crew if Israel did not immediately release certain prisoners. Although the hostages were not killed, they and their families endured days of wrenching anguish while they were held at gun-point. The apparent approval of this tactic by PLO, which continued to welcome PFLP participation, signaled that hijacking aircraft and endangering innocent people were legitimate tools in the struggle for Palestinian rights.
On September 11, 2001, operatives of Al-Qaeda carried this tactic to its logical conclusion by crashing four hijacked American airliners and killing nearly three thousand of my fellow citizens.

2. In May, 1972, PFLP murdered 27 travellers at the Lod Airport.

3. In late June of 1976 PFLP hijacked an Air France airliner to Entebbe, Uganda, where an American Jewish woman was murdered in her hospital bed after Israeli soldiers rescued all other hostages.

Since you have never been accused of personal involvement in terrorist acts, I believed your assurances that you were opposed to terrorism. If so, the death of Dr Habash afforded an appropriate opportunity to remind your people that threatening the lives of travellers was not only deleterious to the prospects of peace, but also morally repugnant. The fact that you have chosen to honor the memory of man who planned and authorized these crimes indicates that you find it necessary to curry the favor of terrorists (and those who support terrorism) among the Palestinian people. This calls into question your resolve to prevent and punish acts of terrorism against Israel after the establishment of a Palestinian State.

As the leader of a nation that has been seriously hurt by terrorism, I cannot tolerate any ambivalence whatsoever on the moral evil of this tactic. Accordingly, I have today signed an Executive Order barring the transfer of weapons made in the United States to Fatah or the Palestinian Authority until further notice. I have also urged the Government of Israel to adopt the same policy.

Yours truly,
/s/
George W Bush
President

Abbas: The New "Dr No?"

"Palestinian violence could make it difficult for Abbas
to concentrate on talks with Israel."
Associated Press, January 1, 2008

Fighting in Gaza between Fatah and Hamas forces this week has killed four Arabs and wounded another 60. Next week President George W Bush is scheduled to visit the area to talk-up his Annapolis initiative for re-starting negotiations about establishing a Palestinian state. I can save him the energy (both personal and jet-fuel) by informing him right now that the peace-talks are already doomed, and there will be no Palestinian state during his term of office.

A dispute between parties I will call A and B can be settled only if both parties view a settlement as an improvement over the current situation. The classic case is that of a labor strike: the workers will be better off earning a paycheck , and the employer will be better off if the firm is again producing goods for the market. But what if one party, say A, is actually better off without a settlement?

One possibility is that A will refuse to negotiate at all. This is the position of Hamas, which openly rejects any settlement with party B: Israel. But what if A seeks favorable treatment from a third party C, which is pushing for a settlement to the dispute? Then A will likely enter negotiations to impress C, but constantly make outrageous demands which B is certain to reject, thus creating the impression that it is really B that is wrecking the negotiations.

In 2000 C stood for Clinton, who (like George W Bush) spent his final year in the presidency trying to settle the Israel-Palestine dispute. Then A stood for Arafat, who rejected a very generous offer to establish a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and about 97% of the West Bank, including limited sovereignty in Jerusalem. But Arafat demanded the Right of Return (of Arab refugees to Israel), a known deal-killer, and walked out when it was refused. Arafat returned to the comfortable scenario of "armed struggle" (terrorism) against Israel, which he apparently preferred to a settlement that would have created a Palestinian state in his lifetime,

Mahmoud Abbas (the new A), a technocrat with none of Yasser Arafat's popularity or ability to dominate all Palestinian factions, is now called upon to reach the kind of settlement that his predecessor rejected nearly eight years ago. Unlike Arafat, Abbas is contending with a challenge from the militant Hamas movement that controls Gaza and also threatens Fatah rule in the West Bank.

The only force in the world that could have stopped Hamas from seizing control of Gaza in 2006 was the Israeli Army. Since all Jews had been removed from Gaza by then, Israel did not "have a dog in that fight" and did nothing. (1)

Fatah is known to be stronger in the West Bank than it was in Gaza, but the prospect of a Hamas revolt in the former area would still be a nightmare for Abbas and his followers. Right now that is impossible because the Israeli Army would crush Hamas. But if Israel withdrew from the West Bank and recognized an independent Palestinian state there, Abbas and Fatah would be on their own. Defeat by Hamas would not only cost these men their jobs, but also their lives! In contrast, Israeli occupation, with all the humiliating checkpoints, does not look so bad, after all.

The mortal combat in Gaza this past week underscores the need for Israel to remain in control of the West Bank for the foreseeable future: not only for the protection of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish settlers living there, but also for the sake of Fatah and Abbas. Paradoxically, a movement launched to destroy Israel (in 1964) now depends upon Israel for its own survival. Stranger things have happened, especially in the Middle East.

And so, Mr President, there will be long and laborious negotiations, but no settlement and no Palestinian state any time soon.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Constant rocket attacks from Gaza have been met with Israeli airstrikes and brief incursions into northern Gaza. Apparently,the present Government of Israel does not consider the rockets a serious enough threat to warrant re-occupation of the areas from which they are launched.