Abbas Denies His Authority to Make Cardinal Decisions for a Lasting Peace Agreement

,

JCPA

Mahmoud Abbas – “the president of the state of Palestine,” chairman of the Palestinian Authority, leader of the PLO, and head of Fatah – must recognize that he is not a serious partner for negotiating with Israel because he does not have the authority to make decisions for the Palestinian people.

The practical significance of his stated political positions in the negotiations with Israel is his rejection of any authority to make historic decisions regarding a political compromise, which closes the door to any stable, lasting solution for two states to live in peace next to each other.

In a meeting with “a popular delegation from Al-Quds” (Jerusalem) at the presidential office in Ramallah on January 10, 2014, Abbas said:1

Occupied Jerusalem is the capital of the state of Palestine, and without it there will be no solution, and no one is authorized to sign [on an agreement regarding it]….Without eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Palestine there will be no peace between us and Israel….Jerusalem is not Abu Dis [a town bordering eastern Jerusalem], but Abu Dis is part of Jerusalem….The capital [of the future state of Palestine will be] in Jerusalem and the [surrounding] area, the capital [will be] in Jerusalem that was conquered in 1967.

We are telling the world that the Palestinians will not surrender and these are not empty words when we say that we will never surrender. We will stand strong and persevere, and the world will eventually have to agree to what we want. What our people want is that our flowers [young girls] and our youth stand strong and persevere as they perform their wonderful deeds in Jerusalem and other places.

This is not about stubbornness but rather steadfastness and standing strong on principles. We have rights even though we are weak in the world. We will continue to demand our rights and we will achieve our rights….We stand strong here in Jerusalem, in the West Bank, in Gaza, in the diaspora, and in every place we will achieve these rights due to our steadfastness and that of our youth.

When we agree on a solution, the Palestinian land, the skies, and the borders will be under full Palestinian sovereignty. We will control the borders and will not give up any part of them, and no one will laugh at us.

The request to recognize Israel as a Jewish state

is an issue that we did not hear before except in the last two years [and accordingly] if [you Palestinians] don’t recognize the existence of a Jewish state there won’t be a solution. We will never recognize this and will not agree to this. It is our right not to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. We have many arguments and many reasons that prevent us from doing so and we presented them to Israel. Their problem with us is that we know many things about them, we know their history and geography, and what we know, we say. We will protect everything and we will not agree to the [definition of] state [of Israel] as Jewish. We want the 1967 borders.

The right of return is a personal option. No authority, [Palestinian] state, the PLO, Abu Mazen [Abbas], or [other Palestinian] leaders have the right to take away a person’s right of return. Let there be [various] options and let the refugee choose. There is compensation and other possibilities. Even a father, if he should request it, cannot wave the right of his children, since the matter is an individual right.

Abbas’ words express a clear message that the Palestinians see the negotiations as simply a tool to achieve Palestinian rights according to the Palestinian viewpoint, and they are not seeking a way to compromise with Israel on essential issues. This follows the Palestinian approach regarding “a peace based on justice” as compared with the Israeli approach of “a peace based on compromise.”

Abbas demands full sovereignty in all the territory conquered by Israel from the Kingdom of Jordan and Egypt in the defensive war it fought in 1967 (“the ’67 lands”), and especially in the area called “eastern Jerusalem,” which includes the Old City, the Temple Mount, the Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and other Jewish historical sites.

An Israeli withdrawal from eastern Jerusalem and all the Jewish holy sites located there, in the eyes of Abbas, is an important prerequisite for a political solution, and without this there is no Palestinian leader who has the authority to sign a political agreement with Israel. In the past Abbas presented similar prerequisites regarding other issues under discussion in the negotiations including borders, sovereignty, refugees, and the freeing of Palestinians serving prison sentences in Israel for involvement in terror attacks.

Abbas is determined in his rejection of the request to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and his position is directly connected to the Palestinian position toward the refugees, regarding which he has distanced himself and all the Palestinian institutions from any authority to reach any decisions involving what the Palestinians call “the right of return.”

In his claim that “the right of return” is a “personal right” of every refugee and his descendants for all generations, Abbas is undermining a basic assumption of Israel and the U.S. regarding the political negotiations, according to which he can represent the Palestinian people on the issues at the heart of the conflict and take historic decisions in their name.

This position conforms with the law approved by Abbas in 2008 in his role as “chairman of the PLO Executive Committee” and “president of the Palestinian National Authority.” The law, called “the Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees,”2 was approved by the Palestinian parliament and determines, among other things, that:

Para. 2 – The right of return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and their property and their receipt of compensation for their suffering is a basic, holy right and is not subject to buying and selling, and is not subject to personal judgment [to make major changes], interpretation, or referendum.

Para. 3 – The right of return is a natural right that is personal, collective, civilian, and political, that is transferred from father to son and is not cancelled over time or through the signing of any agreement, and it cannot be cancelled or given up for any reason.

Para. 5 – It is forbidden to settle the Palestinian refugees or remove them [from their current places] as an alternative to the right of return.

Para. 6 – Anyone who acts in contradiction to this law will be considered as one who has committed serious criminal treason, and will be subject to every criminal and civil punishment that this crime deserves.

The Palestinian strategy has been revealed in full. The current political negotiations, or any future negotiations, cannot bring about a signed, stable, and lasting political agreement that will bring an end to the conflict and all claims. The first Palestinian objective in their order of priorities is to receive full sovereignty on the territory of 1967 – while leaving the conflict wide open.

The problem of the refugees is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and this is seen from the Palestinian perspective as a winning strategic card, through which the Palestinians will be able to wear down the power of the state of Israel even after the establishment of a Palestinian state, and to overcome Israel demographically and turn it over the long term into a part of a single Palestinian state from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River.

*     *     *

Notes

1. Abbas’ speech in Ramallah, January 10, 2014, http://wafa.ps/arabic/index.php?action=detail&id=166593

2. Law of the Right of Return of the Palestinian Refugees (2008), http://www.jcpa.org.il/Templates/showpage.asp?FID=813&DBID=1&LNGID=2&TMID=99&IID=26093

See also

The Palestinian Refugees on the Day After “Independence” – Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi

No End to Palestinian Claims: How Israel and the Palestinians View Borders – Pinhas Inbari

January 14, 2014 | 48 Comments »

Leave a Reply

48 Comments / 48 Comments

  1. @ honeybee:

    “Japan was defeated so there was peace in the Pacific”

    “Not really.there is North Korea,China and,of course, that nasty little business in Vietnam.”

    That wasn’t because Japan was defeated. Actually, No. Korea became a problem only because after Japan was defeated, she wasn’t allowed to have a military establishment of any kind. She had to depend strictly on USA military umbrella, and that kind of indirection created its own complications.

    That created an impossible power vacuum in the region, and China moved to fill it without regard to her natural rival, Japan. When No. Korea acted up, her regional patron, China, felt no need to put a leash on her Korean vassal. To this day, nothing’s changed in that dept.

    Vietnam was a different matter entirely — but again, it had nothing to do with the Japanese defeat in WW2. After the Japanese were defeated in Indochina, the French STILL were simply not ready to relinquish their colonial possessions, so they weren’t inclined to prepare the Viets for independence.

    The point is that victory/defeat IS, in fact, necessary for peace. Necessary but not sufficient.

    Of itself, victory doesn’t ‘guarantee’ peace — but there can be no peace without it.

  2. Bear Klein Said:

    Japan was defeated so there was peace in the Pacific

    Not really.there is North Korea,China and,of course, that nasty little business in Vietnam.

  3. @ Shy Guy:

    “I never said they were MORALLY EQUIVALENT. I said both sides wanted victory.”

    “You are a total moron!”

    How?

    “First of all, as HB points out above, what’s wrong with victory?”

    He DIDN’T say there was anything ‘wrong’ with it. He said, “It may even be advisable.”

    His OBJECTION was to playing the cat-&-mouse game of “peace process,” etc — instead of straightforwardly acknowledging, flat-out, that we want victory.

    “Second of all, our idea of victory doesn’t require us to throw the Arabs into the sea or to slaughter them like pigs.”

    Where does he say he thinks our idea of victory does require that?

    “Furthermore, I don’t have a problem with non-Jews living in Israel, under certain conditions – and no – I’m not interested in them being the equivalent of Islam’s dhimmis.

    Again, he DOESN’T seem to be suggesting he thinks dhimmitude is what you have in mind either — only that the necessary precautions would be inescapably tough (as they would be):

    “The terms offered to Abbas of a limited autonomy with no open borders and with control of residency under Israel’s control are necessary for Israel’s safety, but the terms are nonetheless harsh.”

    “You stupid putz!”

    Again, HOW does what he said make him a putz?

    All the excessive emotionalism just keeps you from absorbing what he actually SAID.

  4. @ CuriousAmerican:
    Actually victory allows for peace. Only victory allows for peace in a conflict such as Israel and the Palestinians.

    Germany was completely defeated so there was peace in the world. Japan was defeated so there was peace in the Pacific. I could go on and on.

    That is why withdrawals cause problems even within the 67 lines it gives the Palestinians hope for victory.

    So Israel should annex what she wants. State this the end of it. If the Palestinians object violently squash them so hard they will not forget. Institute the death penalty for terrorists. This is what victory looks like.

    Clearly Israel is a small country so others may try and punish Israel for doing this (e.g. EU with boycotts). You can only win if you are strong enough. The Palestinians do NOT accept the Jews and so this a zero sum conflict. Only one winner. At this point Israel has won all the rounds of battle in this on going war since 1948. Israel needs to finish the job. It is within our capability and we just need exhibit the inner strength.

    If Israel does this correctly the situation will end up like Spain and the Basques. The Basques except for few people have accepted that they are part of Spain. That is a realistic long term goal. We do not need move every Palestinian (via payment or transfer, nor kill them. Yes in certain circumstances we could pay some to go in trade for land rights. In some circumstances we might need to deport some captured terrorists.

  5. @ CuriousAmerican:

    “Neither side wants peace. Both sides want victory.”

    “Since Victory is wanted, why bother negotiating?”

    Because US & EU get off on such crap

    — and no GOI has ever had the stones to tell those meddlers to go pound sand.

    @ CuriousAmerican:

    “Would you be willing to give up any land in Judea and Samaria for peace – if peace were genuine?”

    No — not by a hair on my chinny-chin-chin. The question itself is internally inconsistent.

    Giving up part of J/S would not lead to peace; quite the contrary, it would spark a war of hemispheric (perhaps greater) dimensions.

    — Does the term Sudetenland help clear things up just a taste?

    “Would you be willing to give the Palestinians an open border with Jordan?”

    Same answer. Same reason.

    “I just want you to admit that the ‘peace’ you want is victory.”

    Victory, yes; you betcha.

    — But there can be NO peace without victory FIRST.

    @ CuriousAmerican:

    “I never said they were MORALLY EQUIVALENT.”

    Quite so; you didn’t.

    “I have no problem if you want total victory over the Arabs. It may even be advisable. It just ain’t peace.”

    It IS advisable. And it ain’t peace, not of itself.

    — OTOH, there can be NO peace without it.

    “The terms offered to Abbs of a limited autonomy with no open borders and with control of residency under Israel’s control are necessary for Israel’s safety, but the terms are nonetheless harsh.”

    Yes, and yes.

    “There is no point in denying it.”

    Agreed.

    “Part of the problem is that Israel is working for total annexation (which I have no problem with) while simultaneously engaging in a peace process with conflicts with the annexation. This is double-minded. Inconsistent.”

    Granted; it does, and it is. No argument here.

    “Do one or the other.”

    Your entreaties are misplaced. Your target should be the USA Dept of State and Executive Branch generally.

    “I wish our American government were not pressuring you.”

    Me too; but you know what wishes are worth.

    “This double-mindedness is not good for Israel.”

    Amen.

  6. CuriousAmerican Said:

    This double-mindedness is not good for Israel.

    It might be good for Israel in the long term but it will be devastating for America just like ancient Tyre. No nation or civilization who went up against the Jewish people have survived intact. If you live near any oceans or major rivers, forested areas,geological faults, Tornado and hurricane zones I would consider moving. If you have savings in the markets I would advise selling out. If you don’t have a firearm I would suggest you get one. I offer such advice because I care about your survival. 🙂

  7. Ted Belman Said:

    I would and so would most Israelis. We would be very generous and give them parts of , part of C and all of A for a genuine peace. We would also contribute to their prosperity.

    Count me out too!!!!

    I would and so would most Israelis.

    “der oylem iz a goylem”

  8. Shy Guy Said:

    I don’t have a problem with non-Jews living in Israel, under certain conditions – and no – I’m not interested in them being the equivalent of Islam’s dhimmis.

    Conditions?

    And they are?

  9. @ Yidvocate:
    Palestinians in their folk lore do believe every Palestinian has a right to choose if he wants to live in Israel. Abbas is deffering to the Arab league only because he does not want to confront Kerry directly with a NO!

    Abbas wants a state handed to him and Israel forced to withdraw by others. That is what the PLO and Abbas want from the US. They are not prepared to make any concessions for peace because in the end they want all of Israel.

  10. What is interesting about this article and seems to be missed by all is that it proves there is no distinct “Palestinian” polity. Abbas can’t go to the washroom without asking permission of the Arab League. This is because there is no distinct paly polity. These fakestinians are all just part of the Arab Ummah, completely indistinguishable, in terms of language, history, culture, religion and national ethos from all the other Arabs of the Ummah.

    Another lesson from the article also not articulated is that what these Arabs hold true about Jerusalem and the “right” of return, as fictional as it is, represents the reality of Jews to the entirety of the land of Israel as an inalienable patrimony that no person or government has any right to relinquish or diminish.

  11. @ CuriousAmerican:

    We had victory remember. We’ve won every major war brought upon us. So it’s not about victory it’s about the corollary to victory: “To the victor goes the spoils”. We’re too timid to take our spoils. That’s the problem.

    We should do exactly what the Arabs did to us. And if you are in doubt just what that was you have only ask yourself how many Jews live in Arab lands – yes all 22 Arab countries. It’s now high time for reciprocity such that we allow just as many Arabs to live in our tiny sliver of a country as they allow us Jews to live in all of their 22 Arab countries combined.

    What could be fairer?

  12. CuriousAmerican Said:

    I never said they were MORALLY EQUIVALENT.

    I said both sides wanted victory.

    You are a total moron!

    First of all, as HB points out above, what’s wrong with victory?

    Second of all, our idea of victory doesn’t require us to throw the Arabs into the sea or to slaughter them like pigs. Furthermore, I don’t have a problem with non-Jews living in Israel, under certain conditions – and no – I’m not interested in them being the equivalent of Islam’s dhimmis.

    You stupid putz!

  13. @ CuriousAmerican:

    I just want you to admit you want Total Victory.

    Yes, Abbas does NOT want peace.

    Neither do you

    As usual you are way off base. In World War II after Nazi Germany exterminated 6 million Jews were they going to stop killing? No! When the allied forces finally defeated Nazi Germany were they not happy they finally had some victory? Of coarse! If they were not willing to go to war where millions more died you and I would not be having this conversation right now as we probably would not exist.

    Don’t confuse victory by comparing this evil to a hockey game.

    Of coarse I want victory over evil! That does not mean I do not want peace…that IS the ONLY way to peace.

    I agree with Bear Kline. I think you should make an appointment with a shrink and get your head checked. Actually pschologists are better equipped for the job!!

  14. Did not say it was wrong. At least you’re honest.

    Getting the others to admit it is like pulling teeth.

  15. @ Ted Belman:

    @ CuriousAmerican:You are so far off the mark that once again I or others have to rebut what you say. What a pain in the ass.

    The PA won’t accept anything less that the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel will accept much less that the expulsion of the Arabs.

    The Arabs are trying to get what they don’t have. The Jews are trying to keep what they have and what has been legally promised to them.

    There is no equivalency here, moral or otherwise.

    I never said they were MORALLY EQUIVALENT.

    I said both sides wanted victory.

    I have no problem if you want total victory over the Arabs. It may even be advisable. It just ain’t peace.

    The terms offered to Abbs of a limited autonomy with no open borders and with control of residency under Israel’s control are necessary for Israel’s safety, but the terms are nonetheless harsh.

    There is no point in denying it.

    Part of the problem is that Israel is working for total annexation (which I have no problem with) while simultaneously engaging in a peace process with conflicts with the annexation.

    This is double-minded. Inconsistent. Do one or the other.

    I wish our American government were not pressuring you.

    This double-mindedness is not good for Israel.

  16. @ dove:
    Count me out too. CA is trying to conduct a ploy…to give an opening to turn more land over to the destroyers of the State of Israel and the Jewish people.

    I NOT want you to give them land. There is NO ploy.

    I just want you to admit you want Total Victory.

    Yes, Abbas does NOT want peace.

    Neither do you.

    You are both equivalently stubborn.

    You are NOT morally equivalent, so I side with Israel’s claims as morally superior.

    But there is NO ploy.

    Go take the land.

    Just don’t tell me that you, dove, want peace when want you want is victory.

    Be honest. You want the land, and the Palestinian off of it.

    My problem is not with Israel’s claim to the land.

    It is with the double-mindedness of your argument

    Before Balfour …. Herzl talked about spiriting the Arab out of the land ….

    “When we occupy the land, we shall bring immediate benefits to the state that receives us. We must expropriate gently the private property on the estates assigned to us. We shall try to spirit the penniless population across the border by procuring employment for it in the transit countries, while denying it any employment in our country.

    Herzl was honest.

    Try being honest, Dove.

    You want victory, not peace.

  17. @ Shy Guy:

    Count me out.

    Count me out too. CA is trying to conduct a ploy…to give an opening to turn more land over to the destroyers of the State of Israel and the Jewish people. We KNOW and Ted KNOWS that Hamas does not want a lasting peace with the Jews – so why allow ourselves to be tricked into destroying the Land of milk and honey that Hashem has entrusted to us to take care of, to flourish in? This is the homeland of the Jewish people. Not our problem that the U.N. never relocated these yahoos back in 1948. Hashem will step in! GUARANTEED!

  18. CuriousAmerican Said:

    Would you be willing to give up any land in Judea and Samaria for peace – if peace were genuine?

    Would you be willing to give the Palestinians an open border with Jordan? if peace were genuine?

    I would and so would most Israelis. We would be very generous and give them parts of , part of C and all of A for a genuine peace. We would also contribute to their prosperity.

  19. @ CuriousAmerican:You are so far off the mark that once again I or others have to rebut what you say. What a pain in the ass.

    The PA won’t accept anything less that the destruction of Israel as a Jewish state. Israel will accept much less that the expulsion of the Arabs.

    The Arabs are trying to get what they don’t have. The Jews are trying to keep what they have and what has been legally promised to them.

    There is no equivalency here, moral or otherwise.

    But you keep trying to equate them.

  20. @ NormanF:

    The Palestinian Arabs don’t want peace.

    For them, peace is a tactic to weaken Israel. For Israelis, peace is a strategy to end the conflict and ensure Israel’s survival.

    Would you be willing to give up any land in Judea and Samaria for peace – if peace were genuine?

    Would you be willing to give the Palestinians an open border with Jordan? if peace were genuine?

    I think not.

    What you want is victory. Okay

    Just admit it; go for total victory, and live with the blowback.

    I AM NOT EVEN RECOMMENDING THAT YOU SHOULD GIVE UP ANYTHING!

    I just want you to admit that the “peace ” you want is victory.

  21. The Palestinian Arabs don’t want peace.

    For them, peace is a tactic to weaken Israel. For Israelis, peace is a strategy to end the conflict and ensure Israel’s survival.

    The two sides are like two ships passing in the night. A peace deal is therefore impossible.

    Abu Bluff will never agree to end the conflict even if all of his demands are met.

  22. Mahmoud Abbas – “the president of the state of Palestine,” chairman of the Palestinian Authority, leader of the PLO, and head of Fatah – must recognize that he is not a serious partner for negotiating with Israel because he does not have the authority to make decisions for the Palestinian people.

    Netanyahu says he will submit all peace offers to a referendum. Netanyahu says he has no authority either.

    This is beyond belief. As bad as Abbas is, all he has done is state what Netanyahu stated.

    Isn’t this what all honest governments do? Submit treaties to a referendum or legislative approval.

    Neither side wants peace. Both sides want victory.

    Since Victory is wanted, why bother negotiating?

    If Israel wants victory, admit it; and do what is necessary. Just prepare for the blowback.

    Many here object to Arabs being on Jewish land.

    Many here object to paying the Arabs to leave.

    Well, the Arabs are not going to leave voluntarily unless you pay them.

    So, ethnic cleansing is the only remaining option.

    Ah! But ethnic cleansing sounds so bad. You do not want to use the term, as it would open up the Jewish people to criticism.

    Say transfer instead. It sounds so much nicer.

    Call it a geographic re-adjustment then.

    How silly can this get?!

    If you want victory, then take it — and don’t whine about the blowback. It will be far worse for the Palestinians.

    I cannot believe what comes out of the reportage of both sides.