Abbas: Moderately Mediocre

Hat Tip: Larwyn

Little Green Footballs notes that the media is burying part of the news coming out of the Palestinian territories, when it neglects to report what the Jerusalem Post covers:

“When Fatah was established, it was accused of treason and we were chased in every place,” Abbas told the crowd. “But with the will and determination of its sons, Fatah has and will continue. We will not give up our principles and we have said that rifles should be directed against the occupation.”

Appealing to Palestinians to avoid civil war, Abbas said: “We are all one people regardless of differences of opinion. My top priority is to preserve national unity because Palestinian infighting and blood are a red line that must not be crossed.”

Defending his call to use weapons against Israel, he added: “We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation. It is forbidden to use these guns against Palestinians. The occupation has perpetrated brutal attacks in Jenin, Bet Hanun and Ramallah.”

Why are Abbas' threats against Israel not being covered?

Is it because the facts do not fit the myth, created and nurtured by world leaders and the media, that Abbas is a moderate? If moderate is a synonym for mediocre, then Abbas is very moderate indeed. Israel has consistently been called upon to commit to confidence-gaining measures for Abbas, usually as a cost to Israel's security. Israel should not have to negotiate with a peace partner who is not only unable to deliver on his commitments and obligations, but also requires unilateral concessions from Israel that put her own security at risk while requiring nothing from the Palestinian Arabs.

Then again, compared to the more outspoken terrorists like Nasrallah and Haniyeh, the more subtle--if bumbling--Abbas who has done nothing to stop the attacks and has made a point of not openly calling for attacks on Israel (till now) is far more palatable to a media in need of a poster child.

Enter Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to, once again--according to Reuters--"bolster the moderate leader in his power struggle with Hamas and find a way to restart peace talks."

So now, despite the fact that the the Road Map's initial phase of stopping all terrorist attacks has not been fulfilled by the Palestinian Arabs, Reuters now reports that:

• Rice wants to accelerate the Road Map by looking into options such as the creation of a Palestinian state with temporary borders--skipping over Phase I and the cessation of terrorism--and jumping into the creation of a provisional Palestinian state.
  
  
• Concurrent with Abbas' unreported declaration of hostilities against Israel, the US plans to provide $86 million for training and equipping Abbas's presidential guard.
  
  
• Senior Abbas aid Saeb Erekat echoed Rice, talking about going directly to "the endgame" of the Road Map--without the Palestinains having been required to fulfill even the most basic obligation to stop killing Israelis. [This goes back to January 2nd, when Abbas raised this point, telling reporters after he met with Mubarak, “We have proposed the idea of back channel talks… and with the participation of members of the Quartet (U.S., Russia, United Nations and European Union)… with the aim of discussing the final phase.”]
  
  
• Israeli officials said Livni and Rice had been discussing the possibility of creating a Palestinian state with temporary borders following the line of a barrier Israel is building in and around the occupied West Bank.

Keep in mind that the excuse behind all this is the threat of Hamas to the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

But back in October 2005, Rice spoke at Princeton University:

For instance, in the Good Friday Agreement it was understood that when Sinn Fein came into politics and eventually the IRA would disarm and perhaps, hopefully, that process is now underway. We did not permit the Afghan warlords to keep their weapons and participate as candidates in politics. They had to make a choice. And so it is absolutely the case that you cannot have armed groups ultimately participating in politics with no expectation that they're going to disarm. But we are very clearheaded about Hamas.

HAMAS, Rice said, stands for a one-state solution to the conflict and for the destruction of Israel. “HAMAS is an organization that asks Palestinian mothers and fathers to give their children up to make themselves suicide bombers. And it is a real detriment and block to further peace in the Middle East, so we’re not at all confused by this. We do, I think, need to give the Palestinians some space to try and reconcile their national politics, but they’re going to eventually have to disarm these groups. They can’t have it both ways.” [emphasis added]

Arutz Sheva pointed out at the time that while Rice declared categorically that Hamas would eventually have to disarm, she never actually said that the terrorist group should not be allowed to run in the elections. The rest, as they say, is history.

Apparently the US was no more serious about dealing with Hamas at the time than it was about dealing with Muqtada al-Sadr in Iraq. As a result, both are major hurdles to US objectives in the PA and Iraq, respectively--despite the financial blockade on Hamas. Could it be that at the end of the day the US support of Iraq against Sadr--even with the surge--will be no more than its support of Israel against Hamas and Fatah?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Abbas and Muqtada al-Sadr and Iraq and Condoleezza Rice