[Peace-discuss] … "and the traitor is Barack Obama"

[Brussel Morton K.]

Speaking about Mahmoud Abbas, the West Bank Palestinian leader: "He  
feels betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama."

A Line in the Sand
by Uri Avnery, November 09, 2009
Mahmoud Abbas is fed up. Last week he withdrew his candidacy for the  
coming presidential election in the Palestinian Authority.
I understand him.  He feels betrayed. And the traitor is Barack Obama.

A year ago, when Obama was elected, he aroused high hopes in the  
Muslim world, among the Palestinian people as well as in the Israeli  
peace camp.

At long last an American president who understood that he had to put  
an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, not only for the sake of  
the two peoples, but mainly for the U.S. national interests. This  
conflict is largely responsible for the tidal waves of anti-American  
hatred that sweep the Muslim masses from ocean to ocean.

Everybody believed that a new era had begun. Instead of the Clash of  
Civilizations, the Axis of Evil, and all the other idiotic but fateful  
slogans of the Bush era, a new approach of understanding and  
reconciliation, mutual respect and practical solutions.

Nobody expected Obama to exchange the unconditional pro-Israeli line  
for a one-sided pro-Palestinian attitude. But everybody thought that  
the U.S. would henceforth adopt a more evenhanded approach and push  
the two sides toward the Two-State Solution. And, no less important,  
that the continuous stream of hypocritical and sanctimonious  
blabbering would be displaced by a determined, vigorous, non- 
provocative, but purposeful policy.

As high as the hopes were then, so deep is the disappointment now.  
Nothing of all these has come about. Worse: the Obama administration  
has shown by its actions and omissions that it is not really different  
from the administration of George W. Bush.

 From the first moment it was clear that the decisive test would come  
in the battle of the settlements.

It may seem that this is a marginal matter. If peace is to be achieved  
within two years, as Obama’s people assure us, why worry about another  
few houses in the settlements that will be dismantled anyway? So there  
will be a few thousand settlers more to resettle. Big deal.

But the freezing of the settlements has an importance far beyond its  
practical effect. To return to the metaphor of the Palestinian lawyer:  
"We are negotiating the division of a pizza, and in the meantime,  
Israel is eating the pizza."

The American insistence on freezing the settlements in the entire West  
Bank and East Jerusalem was the flag of Obama’s new policy. As in a  
Western movie, Obama drew a line in the sand and declared: up to here  
and no further! A real cowboy cannot withdraw from such a line without  
being seen as yellow.

That is precisely what has now happened. Obama has erased the line he  
himself drew in the sand. He has given up the clear demand for a total  
freeze. Binyamin Netanyahu and his people announced proudly – and  
loudly – that a compromise had been reached, not, God forbid, with the  
Palestinians (who are they?) but with the Americans. They have allowed  
Netanyahu to build here and build there, for the sake of "Normal  
Life," "Natural Increase," "Completing Unfinished Projects," and other  
transparent pretexts of this kind. There will not be, of course, any  
restrictions in Jerusalem, the Undivided Eternal Capital of Israel. In  
short, the settlement activity will continue in full swing.

To add insult to injury, Hillary Clinton troubled herself to come to  
Jerusalem in person in order to shower Netanyahu with unctuous  
flattery. There is no precedent to the sacrifices he is making for  
peace, she fawned.

That was too much even for Abbas, whose patience and self-restraint  
are legendary. He has drawn the consequences.

"To understand all is to forgive all," the French say. But in this  
case, some things are hard to forgive.

Certainly, one can understand Obama. He is engaged in a fight for his  
political life on the social front, the battle for health insurance.  
Unemployment continues to rise. The news from Iraq is bad. Afghanistan  
is quickly turning into a second Vietnam. Even before the award  
ceremony, the Nobel Peace Prize looks like a joke.

Perhaps he feels that the time is not ripe for provoking the almighty  
pro-Israel lobby. He is a politician, and politics is the art of the  
possible. It would be possible to forgive him for this, if he admitted  
frankly that he is unable to realize his good intentions in this area  
for the time being.

But it is impossible to forgive what is actually happening. Not the  
scandalous American treatment of the Goldstone report. Not the  
loathsome behavior of Hillary in Jerusalem. Not the mendacious talk  
about the "restraint" of the settlement activities. The more so as all  
this goes on with total disregard of the Palestinians, as if they were  
merely extras in a musical.

Not only has Obama given up his claim to a complete change in U.S.  
policy, but he is actually continuing the policy of Bush. And since  
Obama pretends to be the opposite of Bush, this is double treachery.

Abbas reacted with the only weapon he has at his command: the  
announcement that he will leave public life.

The American policy in the "Wider Middle East" can be compared to a  
recipe in a cookbook: "Take five eggs, mix with flour and sugar…"

In real life: Take a local notable, give him the paraphernalia of  
government, conduct "free elections," train his security forces, turn  
him into a subcontractor.

This is not an original recipe. Many colonial and occupation regimes  
have used it in the past. What is so special about its use by the  
Americans is the "democratic" props for the play. Even if a cynical  
world does not believe a word of it, there is the audience back home  
to think about.

That is how it was done in the past in Vietnam. How Hamid Karzai was  
chosen in Afghanistan and Nouri Maliki in Iraq. How Fouad Siniora has  
been kept in Lebanon. How Muhammad Dahlan was to be installed in the  
Gaza Strip (but was at the decisive moment forestalled by Hamas.) In  
most of the Arab countries, there is no need for this recipe, since  
the established regimes already satisfy the requirements.

Abbas was supposed to fill this role. He bears the title of president,  
he was elected fairly, an American general is training his security  
forces. True, in the following parliamentary elections his party was  
soundly beaten, but the Americans just ignored the results and the  
Israelis imprisoned the undesirable parliamentarians. The show must go  
on.

But Abbas is not satisfied with being the egg in the American recipe.

I first met him 26 years ago. After the first Lebanon War, when we  
(Matti Peled, Ya’acov Arnon, and I) went to Tunis to meet Yasser  
Arafat, we saw Abbas first. That was the case every time we came to  
Tunis after that. Peace with Israel was the "desk" of Abbas.

Conversations with him were always to the point. We did not become  
friends, as with Arafat. The two were of very different temperament.  
Arafat was an extrovert, a warm person who liked personal gestures and  
physical contact with the people he talked with. Abbas is a self- 
contained introvert who prefers to keep people at a distance.

 From the political point of view, there is no real difference. Abbas  
is continuing the line laid down by Arafat in 1974: a Palestinian  
state within the pre-1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital.  
The difference is in the method. Arafat believed in his ability to  
influence Israeli public opinion. Abbas limits himself to dealings  
with rulers. Arafat believed that he had to keep in his arsenal all  
possible means of struggle: negotiations, diplomatic activity, armed  
struggle, public relations, devious maneuvers. Abbas puts everything  
in one basket: peace negotiations.

Abbas does not want to become a Palestinian Marshal Petain. He does  
not want to head a local Vichy regime. He knows that he is on a  
slippery slope and has decided to stop before it is too late.

I think, therefore, that his intention to leave the stage is serious.  
I believe his assertion that it is not just a bargaining ploy. He may  
change his decision, but only if he is convinced that the rules of the  
game have changed.

Obama was completely surprised. That has never happened before: an  
American client, totally dependent on Washington, suddenly rebels and  
poses conditions. That is exactly what Abbas has done now, when he  
recognized that Obama is unwilling to fulfill the most basic  
condition: to freeze the settlements.

 From the American point of view, there is no replacement. There are  
certainly some capable people in the Palestinian leadership, as well  
as corrupt ones and collaborators. But there is no one who is capable  
of rallying around him all the West Bank population. The first name  
that comes up is always Marwan Barghouti, but he is in prison and the  
Israeli government has already announced that he will not be released  
even if elected. Also, it is not clear whether he is willing to play  
that role in the present conditions. Without Abbas, the entire  
American recipe comes apart.

Netanyahu, too, was utterly surprised. He wants phony negotiations,  
devoid of substance, as a camouflage for the deepening of the  
occupation and enlarging of the settlements. A "peace process" as a  
substitute for peace. Without a recognized Palestinian leader, with  
whom can he "negotiate"?

In Jerusalem, there is still hope that Abbas’ announcement is merely a  
ploy, that it would be enough to throw him some crumbs in order to  
change his mind. It seems that they do not really know the man. His  
self-respect will not allow him to go back, unless Obama awards him a  
serious political achievement.

 From Abbas’ point of view, the announcement of his retirement is the  
doomsday weapon.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20091108/8bc15970/attachment-0001.html