How Abbas Duped Kerry and Indyk
Kerry and Indyk failed to understand that no Palestinian leader has a mandate to make concessions to Israel as part of a peace agreement. Concessions would be tantamount to signing his own death warrant. Abbas is being denounced as a "traitor" for merely opposing the abduction of three Israeli teenagers.
The release of 78 prisoners, some with "blood on their hands," is seen as a major achievement for Abbas, who was never even asked to pay anything in return.
U.S. envoy to the Middle East Martin Indyk announced on June 28 that he was quitting his job "battered and unbowed."
But Indyk forgot to mention that he is also leaving his job after Palestinian Authority [PA] President Mahmoud Abbas succeeded in tricking him and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
Abbas has, in fact, emerged as the biggest winner from the nine-month peace talks, which ended in failure in late April. Abbas proved that it is easy to fool the Americans into thinking that he would be able to sign a peace agreement with Israel that included concessions unacceptable to most Palestinians.
Abbas managed to persuade the Americans that the release of Palestinian prisoners imprisoned by Israel before the Oslo Accords would enhance his standing among Palestinians and boost his chances of signing a peace agreement with Israel.
Kerry and Indyk were quick to buy Abbas's argument, and they exerted heavy pressure on the Israeli government to comply.
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and PA President Mahmoud Abbas share a laugh in Ramallah on January 4, 2013. (Image source: U.S. State Dept.) Inset: The "battered and unbowed" U.S. special envoy Martin Indyk. (Image source: Aspen Institute/Flickr)
The Israeli government reluctantly approved the release of some 104 prisoners, including many with "blood on their hands."
During the nine months of the peace talks, Israel released 78 Palestinian prisoners in three stages, in the hope that this would boost the peace process with the Palestinians and enhance Abbas's credibility among his people.
The release of the prisoners is indeed seen as a major achievement for Abbas, who was never even asked to pay anything in return.
When some of Abbas's advisors were asked why they were continuing with the U.S.-sponsored negotiations even though they knew Israel was not going to give them everything they were asking for, they pointed out that the effort was worthwhile even if it only led to the release of veteran prisoners.
In the end, the release of the prisoners brought about neither a peace agreement with Israel nor bolstered Abbas's standing among Palestinians. Moreover, the release of the prisoners does not seem to have increased the number of Palestinians who support the peace process with Israel.
A public opinion poll published last week shows that a majority of Palestinians now oppose a two-state solution and reject permanent acceptance of Israel's existence.
As for Abbas's standing among his people, it has become clear over the past few weeks that the PA president is being denounced as a "traitor" for merely opposing the abduction of three Israeli teenagers. Obviously, Palestinians have forgotten that Abbas managed to secure the release of prisoners incarcerated by Israel more than 20 years ago.
Apparently, Kerry and Indyk were convinced up to the last moment that Abbas would be able or willing to make concessions that were tantamount to signing his own death warrant.
Abbas was clever to pursue the negotiations until the end of the nine-month deadline set by Kerry in the hope that he would get the fourth and final batch of the 104 pre-Oslo prisoners.
Abbas, at the same time, wanted to give Kerry and Indyk a last-minute chance to force Israel to accept all his demands, namely a full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines and the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital.
When Abbas realized that his scheme was not working, however, he embarked on a series of steps that caught the Obama Administration by surprise.
First, Abbas signed applications for Palestinian membership in 15 international treaties and conventions.
Second, he struck a unity deal with Hamas, which resulted in the establishment of a Palestinian "national consensus" government.
He seems to have gotten away with these two surprise moves, which were seen as severe blow to U.S. efforts to move forward with the peace process.
Abbas appears to be the only player who benefited from the botched U.S.-sponsored peace process. Not only did this peace process get 78 prisoners released, but it also paved the way for Abbas to embark on unilateral moves and wage a diplomatic war against Israel in the international arena.
As if that were not enough, the peace process eventually drove Abbas into the open arms of Hamas: Abbas would rather join forces with Hamas than succumb to U.S. pressure to reach a "treacherous" agreement with Israel.
Kerry and Indyk failed to understand that no Palestinian leader has a mandate to make real concessions to Israel as part of a peace agreement.
Instead, they chose to endorse the false assumption that Abbas would be able to deliver a deal. By doing so, they actually forced Abbas to mislead them into thinking that if only Israel released more prisoners, he would be able to make concessions. The question now is whether Kerry and Indyk will be prepared to admit that they were duped by the Palestinian Authority president. Probably not.
Reader comments on this item
|Prisoner release was like "protection money" that John Kerry extorted from Israel [145 words]||E.L. , Israel||Jul 3, 2014 09:32|
|as it should be seen [23 words]||Mutantone||Jul 1, 2014 20:23|
|Abbas fooled kerry and Indyk [23 words]||George Weiss||Jul 1, 2014 12:46|
|The virtue of consistency [181 words]||Doug Mayfield||Jul 1, 2014 12:09|
|↔ No chance [73 words]||David Walker||Jul 2, 2014 10:41|
|↔ I agree [98 words]||Doug Mayfield||Jul 2, 2014 15:31|
|Abbas is laughing all the way into Kerry's face. [92 words]||Fred||Jul 1, 2014 09:36|
|↔ Abbas is laughing in Kerry's face [57 words]||Sheli||Jul 2, 2014 00:33|
|dupes or willing victims? [81 words]||Okey||Jul 1, 2014 09:14|
|How Abbas Duped Indyk and Kerry [74 words]||Ilana Goldstein||Jul 1, 2014 08:33|
|You overestimate the rationality of the parties involved. [207 words]||Leo Crumb||Jul 1, 2014 06:41|
|anti Israel plot [100 words]||Robert Davis||Jul 1, 2014 05:41|
|↔ Re: Robert Davis and "anti Israel plot" [129 words]||Robert Haymond||Jul 1, 2014 12:51|
|↔ Bibi is weak but he's not the worst [104 words]||dante||Jul 3, 2014 18:35|
|Clarity and Accuracy [34 words]||MICHAEL WOLLMAN||Jul 1, 2014 05:20|
Comment on this item
by Khaled Abu Toameh
To understand what drives a young Palestinian to carry out such a deadly attack, one needs to look at the statements of Palestinian Authority leaders during the past few weeks.
The anti-Israel campaign of incitement reached its peak with Abbas's speech at the UN a few weeks ago, when he accused Israel of waging a "war of genocide" in the Gaza Strip. Abbas made no reference to Hamas's crimes against both Israelis and Palestinians.
Whatever his motives, it is clear that the man who carried out the most recent attack, was influenced by the messages that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority leadership have been sending their people.
by Richard Kemp
Would General Allen -- or any other general today -- recommend contracting out his country's defenses if it were his country at stake? Of course not.
The Iranian regime remains dedicated to undermining and ultimately destroying the State of Israel. The Islamic State also has Israel in its sights and would certainly use the West Bank as a point from which to attack, if it were open to them.
There can be no two-state solution and no sovereign Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan, however desirable those things might be. The stark military reality is that Israel cannot withdraw its forces from the West Bank.
Fatah leaders ally themselves with the terrorists of Hamas, and, like Hamas, they continue to reject the every existence of the State of Israel.
If Western leaders actually want to help, they should use all diplomatic and economic means to make it clear to the Palestinians that they will never achieve an independent and sovereign state while they remain set on the destruction of the State of Israel.
by Louis René Beres
The Palestine Liberation Organization [PLO], forerunner of today's Palestinian Authority, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel came into the unintended control of the West Bank and Gaza. What therefore was the PLO planning to "liberate"?
Why does no one expect the Palestinians to cease all deliberate and random violence against Israeli civilians before being considered for admission to statehood?
On June 30, 1922, a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress of the United States endorsed a "Mandate for Palestine," confirming the right of Jews to settle anywhere they chose between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. This is the core American legacy of support for a Jewish State that President Obama now somehow fails to recall.
A sovereign state of Palestine, as identified by the Arabs -- a Muslim land occupied by "Palestinian" Arabs -- has never existed; not before 1948, and not before 1967. From the start, it was, and continues to be, the Arab states -- not Israel -- that became the core impediment to Palestinian sovereignty.
by Timon Dias
It looks as if this new law is meant to serve as a severe roadblock to parties that would like to dismantle the EU in a democratic and peaceful way from within.
A rather dull semantic trick pro-EU figures usually apply, is calling their opponents "anti-Europe."
by Alan M. Dershowitz