Free Markets, Free People

So who speaks for the Palestinians?

Elliot Abrams asks that question given some news out of the Middle East that has gone virtually undiscussed.  You remember the recent announcement that indirect or “proximity” talks were supposed to begin soon between Israel and Palestine.  Abrams says, “maybe not”.  And the reason is not good news:

Two stories this week in Haaretz, the Israeli daily, make this clear. The first story recounts an interview Abbas gave Israeli TV, and notes that “Abbas said he hopes to get Arab League approval for indirect talks on May 1.” The second story recycles an item from the newspaper Al-Watan in Damascus, and begins this way: “The Arab League is expected to reject the Obama administration’s proposal to begin indirect Middle East peace negotiations in the coming weeks, sources from the 22-state body told Syria’s Al-Watan daily on Tuesday. The League’s Monitoring Committee for the Arab Peace Initiative is scheduled to meet on Saturday to vote on the proposal, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is unlikely to accept any offer for peace talks that does not meet the panel’s approval.”

Of course that changes the game pretty dramatically.  If Abbas has ceded the power of the Palestinians to speak for themselves to the Arab League, it complicates any possible solution with Israel.  In fact, as Abrams notes, it is a return “to the days when the Palestinians were under the control of Arab states rather than masters of their own future”.   And we all know how well that’s turned out.

Second, putting the Arab League in charge magnifies the influence of bad actors. To get negotiations going, the Obama administration now has to convince not only Abbas, but Bashar al Assad. Perhaps this helps explain why George Mitchell has visited Damascus and why the administration persists in “outreach” to Syria despite its continuing evil conduct (most recently, reports of the shipment of Scud missiles to Hezbollah). Having committed itself to the “peace process,” the administration simply cannot afford to treat Syria as it deserves; Syria has too much clout now.

So now, as Abrams notes, since such countries as Syria have a say in what the Palestinians do, we have to tread more lightly than perhaps we could have prior to this little announcement.  That reigns in, for instance, putting the amount of diplomatic pressure that the report of SCUDs to Hezbollah deserves.

More than anything, though, it introduces a third party to the talks which has no vested interest in seeing the peace process work.  Other than Egypt and Jordan, both of which have peace treaties with Israel, the other 20 nations have demonstrated little care or desire for peace with Israel.  If you thought the peace process was tough before, this little wrinkle makes it almost impossible now.


Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

4 Responses to So who speaks for the Palestinians?

  • It is truly amazing that the Palestinians have now come full circle to where they were from 1948-1973.  Until after the Yom Kippur War they were basically wards of the Arab League and of UNWRA.  Then the PLO and Yasir Arafat emerged as a revolutionary “voice” and the popular meme became that the PLO was their “sole legitimate representative”.  Decades of negotiations and failed initiatives ensued with the ultimate goal of creating a political entity called “Palestine”; could be an autonomous region, a state, could be chicken soup!  Now, Abbas has all but explicitly ceded claim to the title that Arafat created.
    For Israel this also turns the calendar back.  Until the 1980s it was recognized that their principal threats were in the near-abroad (Egypt, Syria, e.g.).  Then the issue of the Palestinians took center stage with the Intifadeh and negotiating statehood/autonomy/whatever became Job One.  Now, Abbas basically admits that the road to Jericho or Ram’Allah goes through Damascus.  For Israel that means their primary diplomatic and military attention should be to their northeast, just like it was before the 1967 war, with the added threat of their masters in Iran and their combined emerging NBC threats.  The Palestinian issue has effectively become a sideshow annoyance at most.
    We’ve just gone Back To The Future…or something like that.

  • This is all part of Obama’s clever plan. I won’t spill the beans on it, but Scott Erb will explain it shortly.

  • The empirical data shows that the Palestinians are the world’s worst negotiators.