Middle East

Mr. Abbas Goes to the UN

September 23, 2011

Multiple Pages
Mr. Abbas Goes to the UN

The protracted Mideast “peace process” has finally hit the Iron Wall. The Palestinian Authority’s president, Mahmoud Abbas, has wandered off the reservation and is taking the Palestinian question to the UN.

It’s about time. The much-ballyhooed, American-sponsored “peace process” began with 1978’s Camp David Accords. It was revived at 1991’s Madrid Conference—in Operation Desert Storm’s aftermath—and has continued ever since under various guises: The Oslo Accords (1993); Gaza-Jericho Agreement (1994); Oslo II (1995); Wye River Memorandum (1998); Sharm el-Sheikh Memorandum (1999); Camp David Summit (2000); Taba Summit (2001); Roadmap for Peace (2002); Aqaba Peace Summit (2003); The Geneva Initiative (2003); Sharm el-Sheikh Summit (2005); Sharm el-Sheikh Summit II (2007); Annapolis Summit (2007); Obama’s Cairo Speech (2009); Waldorf Astoria Hotel Trilateral Meeting (2009); and the Washington Summit (2010).

Aside from providing a convenient diplomatic cover for military occupation, the “peace process” has resulted in half a million fanatical Jewish “settlers” imposed on the West Bank, complementing the Israeli annexation of Arab Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan Heights. Real-estate and water rights have been expropriated from occupied Palestine to accommodate the “settlers” from Brooklyn, the former Soviet Union, and the four corners of the globe. In plain language, this is called theft. It has been ongoing since 1948. In addition, the gentlemen in Jerusalem have built a concrete wall higher and longer than the Berlin Wall to encase the West Bank. Gaza remains blockaded.

Washington now euphemistically refers to such unilateral acts by the occupying power—illegal under international law—as “facts on the ground” which the Palestinians must condone or else be deemed terrorists. To a remarkable extent, the US Congress and tax-deductible contributions from America have paid for these operations.

“Evidently, Abbas has grown weary of being treated like a stooge and having little to show for it.”

This prolonged scam began for the Palestinians under Yasser Arafat’s leadership and is ending with Abbas. Washington summarily jettisoned Arafat in July 2000 as soon as he failed to accept the Camp David diktat proffered by Bill Clinton and Israel’s lawyers Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk, acting in concert with Israel’s slippery Prime Minister, Ehud Barak. Clinton blamed the summit’s blowup entirely on the hapless Arafat. Bill and Hillary washed their hands lickety-split of the whole affair, managing to keep their pro-Israel credentials intact and their post-White House career prospects alive.

On Ariel Sharon and Dick Cheney’s advice, G. W. Bush refused even to pick up the phone and talk to Arafat. In thrall to the neocons, he outsourced America’s entire Mideast policy to Ariel Sharon until Sharon suffered a stroke, which left him in a coma. After being feted in Washington for almost a decade, Arafat ended his days under siege at his ramshackle Ramallah compound, where he died a broken man under mysterious circumstances in 2004.

Arafat was either a victim of the “war on terror” or a target of Ariel Sharon’s war of terror. Arafat’s deputy, the colorless and mild-mannered Abbas, took over the leadership of Fatah and the Palestinian Authority. He was rebuffed in his attempts to negotiate.

G. W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice hit upon the idea that the Palestinians should have an election. The election took place in 2006, monitored by former US President Jimmy Carter and others. Hamas won big in both the West Bank and in Gaza. Carter enthused about an “honest, fair, and safe election process” and said “we were all surprised at the enormity of the Hamas victory.” Washington refused to accept the outcome. Bush jettisoned Hamas. Washington and Jerusalem would henceforth only deal with Mahmoud Abbas.

Washington funded, propped up, and perfumed Abbas’s unelected West Bank regime, while Hamas’s stronghold in Gaza was turned into the biggest prison camp on Earth for 1.5 million human beings, relegated to a free-fire zone for Jerusalem to attack at will with impunity. David Rose wrote of how the Cheney White House, in the person of Likudnik sympathizer Elliott Abrams, orchestrated an attempted military takeover of Gaza by Fatah in 2006. It failed.

Evidently, Abbas has grown weary of being treated like a stooge and having little to show for it. Surely he hoped that Peace Prize Obama could deliver concessions and a modicum of rationality from Sharon’s successor, the double-talking Bibi Netanyahu.

But all Obama delivered was pap, platitudes, and bromides. Contrary to his grandiosity, Obama had no clout when it came to dealing with Israel or the domestic pro-Israel lobby.

Abbas and his apparatchiks are obviously desperate. They have been subsidized by Washington, Saudi Arabia, and the EU, but that is getting them nowhere fast. They may even be worried about an internal revolt on the West Bank along the lines of what happened in Egypt. They need leverage in dealing with their Zionist overlords. They have no bargaining chips. Washington and Jerusalem like it that way. 

This explains Abbas’s démarche to the UN. No wonder Jerusalem and Washington are going ballistic. Their “peace process” playbook has been torn up. For Obama, it will be especially embarrassing. If the US vetoes Palestinian statehood in the Security Council—I’m praying that Hillary Clinton will be the US representative sitting at the table who casts the veto—Obama will be exposed before the entire world as just another hypocrite, dwarf, and proxy for Jerusalem along the lines of Tony Blair. Obama has pretended to be a principled, liberal, evenhanded, and sincere peacemaker. It will be most difficult to maintain that fiction after the veto. As for Hillary’s reputation, a veto will only confirm what has long been obvious. Can you imagine her next trip to Riyadh?

Does Obama want to be regarded as a yes-man for Jerusalem to shore up Jewish funding and votes for his reelection campaign? That is entirely possible, even likely. Like Hillary, Obama is a consummate opportunist. Meanwhile, Republican fruitcakes and fools are blasting Obama for supposedly throwing Israel under the bus. They must believe that spouting such falsehoods advances their cause.

When it comes to America and the Middle East, we are not dealing with foreign policy. This goes back to Harry Truman’s difficult election campaign of 1948 and his recognition of Israel as a legitimate state, which went against the US State and Defense Departments’ advice. In the current hubbub over Palestinian statehood, as in everything pertaining to Zionism’s march since 1917, we are dealing with American domestic politics—specifically, with ethnic politics, campaign contributions, special interests, and a favorable press. In other words, it’s a racket.


Daily updates with TM’s latest


The opinions of our commenters do not necessarily represent the opinions of Taki's Magazine or its contributors.