Soccer Dad

Abu Mazen's Whitewash

Part of me finds the fact that Abu Mazen said:

"The use of arms has been damaging and should end," the U.S.-favored leader said in an interview published by the pan-Arab Asharq al-Awsat newspaper, reiterating a long-standing opposition to armed attacks in a 4-year-old Palestinian revolt.

Abbas later cast the remarks, his strongest since Arafat's death on Nov. 11, as a call for renewed diplomacy. "At this stage we are against militarizing the uprising because we want to negotiate," he told reporters during a visit to Saudi Arabia.

encouraging. After all Arafat rarely made such comments. Yet for all the hullabaloo made over the moderation of these remarks, I wonder do these declarations really mean anything? Or are they just statements made for international consumption.
After all Abu Mazen (nom de guerre of Mahmoud Abbas - how many peace makers use noms de guerre?) didn't say, "The violence employed by the PA against Israel since April 1994 has been wrong and in violation of the letter and spirit that the Ra'is signed with Israel in 1993." he simply said that the violence of the past four years was "damaging!" IOW, he objects to the violence because it didn't work. (I guess he's admitting that Israel's military approach "worked!")
But there are other reasons to be skeptical.
Michael Widlanski, who actually knows Arabic, noted some differences between the Israeli press and the Palestinian press. (via IMRA or original Hebrew at Ha'aretz):

When "Haaretz" wrote in its lead headline (Dec. 15, 2004) "Abu Mazen: The Use of Weapons in the Current Intifada has hurt us and has to stop," Radio "Sawt Filasteen"- "Voice of Palestine"-- the official mouthpiece of the Palestinian National Authority (PNA)and the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), kept completely quiet. When "Yediot" and "Maariv" extensively covered and featured the remarks of Abu-Mazen (which were made to "Al-Sharq al-Awsat," an Arab newspaper published in London), official Palestinian television and the daily newspapers ignored the event.

So how to explaing the difference in coverage? Widlanski concludes:

It appears, then, that a careful examination of Abu-Mazen's remarks to the Arab newspaper in London - as well as other recent remarks - shows that Abu-Mazen does not oppose violence against Israelis from a moral or ideological perspective. Rather, he opposes some violence only from a "pragmatic" or "utilitarian" perspective. And then only for a short time.

Of course there are those who parade Abbas's comments as something significant, "Abbas truce call risks alienating Palestinian hardliners":

A call by PLO chief Mahmud Abbas for Palestinians to end the armed intifada risked alienating more hardliners and public opinion, less than a month before presidential elections which he looks certain to win.

The radical Islamist group Hamas and its smaller rival Islamic Jihad on Wednesday rejected the argument from Abbas that the use of weapons since the September 2000 outbreak of the intifada had been a mistake.

On Thursday, it was the turn of Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades, an armed offshoot of the mainstream Fatah (news - web sites) movement to which Abbas belongs, to turn down his calls to disarm.

Wow what a gutsy guy!
(To contrast societies consider this competing headline: "Jewish settlers mull civil disobedience over Gaza pullout." Remember these are the Israeli "extremists" who are threatening "civil disobedience" to fight the loss of their homes; apparently though, Palestinian "mainstream" opinion thinks that violence if OK against Israel.)
But other articles don't show such a concilliatory Abbas, consider "Abbas says Sharon's talk of annexing settlements could sabotage peace talks":

In a major policy speech Thursday, Sharon said the withdrawal, coupled with Arafat's death, could turn 2005 into a "year of great opportunity."

But Sharon also reiterated his determination to hold onto some large West Bank settlements and all of Jerusalem in a final peace deal. The Palestinians want all the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem for a future state.

In a telephone interview from the Gulf state of Qatar, Abbas called Sharon's comments a "disaster."

"If (Sharon) puts these conditions on the table and says that he wants to negotiate on this basis, then I think he's closing all the doors to peace," Abbas said.

Abbas said Israel must honour the internationally backed "road map" peace plan, which called for the creation of a Palestinian state next year. The plan stalled soon after it was signed in 2003 with neither side meeting its initial commitments.

"If the Israelis are ready to sit with us to negotiate implementing the road map, without any conditions, then we are ready to sit with them, because what we want is to implement the road map," Abbas said. "We will implement our part, and they should implement their part."

Abbas also called on U.S. President George W. Bush to pull back from his statement in April endorsing Israel's plan to hold on to parts of the West Bank in a final peace settlement and ruling out Palestinian refugees returning to Israel.

In recent days, Abbas has criticized the four-year-old armed uprising against Israel, but he has not pulled back from the key Palestinian demand for a full Israeli withdrawal from lands it captured in the 1967 Mideast war.

Regardless, Abbas, a pragmatist, is seen as the candidate favoured by Israel and the United States in the Jan. 9 elections to succeed Arafat.

So if Abbas is a "pragmatist" as defined here, why does he insist on a maximal demand before negotiations even start? Wouldn't this suggest that his criticism of violence is just tactical and not substantive? Or is the rest of the field so extreme that he is simply a "pragmatist" in comparison?
(Here we read:

An American monitoring team, including former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, will travel to the region to observe the vote, Deanna Congileo, a Carter spokeswoman, said Friday. The U.S. team will join a European Union observer mission.

Why doesn't the article mention Carter's record of validating the corrupt election of Arafat in 1996 and of Hugo Chavez Venezuela this year? Isn't Carter's observation status significant? But I digress.)
Once again as specified earlier in the article, Israel is called on for action and the Palestinians for words:

Since Yasser Arafat's death last month a rare feeling of optimism has swept over the region, with both Israelis and Palestinians calling for new negotiations to end their conflict. Israeli officials have promised to help ensure the coming Palestinian elections go smoothly, and Palestinian leaders have been working to persuade militants to halt attacks on Israel.

Israel, in fact, agreed to remove checkpoints for the election. And there seems to be little that Abu Mazen has done to "persuade" militants not to attack Israel. (Why is that persuasion only to take place after elections anyway?)
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at December 20, 2004 05:34 AM | TrackBack