Soccer Dad

Two red herrings out of three ain't bad

The Washington Post gets it partially right in its editorial Enemies of Peace.

The politicians and pundits outside the Middle East who have been insisting on the need for a Middle East settlement, including the Iraq Study Group, tend to describe the obstacle as passivity by the Bush administration or obstructionism by Israel. Mr. Abbas knows better. In calling for elections, a desperate and risky measure with uncertain legal justification, the moderate president delivered a speech describing how Hamas and its sponsors had paralyzed Palestinian government and made peace talks impossible. "They give orders from afar, and reject offers from afar," he said. He was referring to Hamas hard-liner Khaled Meshal, who from a base in Damascus has blocked political agreements between his movement and Mr. Abbas's Fatah party, and who has prevented the release of a captured Israeli soldier, even in exchange for 1,000 Palestinian prisoners. There is also Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, who flew to Tehran this month to accept tens of millions of dollars from the Iranian regime -- and to announce that Hamas would never compromise with Israel.

They're right the problem isn't the Bush administration's passivity or Israel's obstructionism. But Abbas "moderate?" I don't buy it.

Recently Israel Matzav reminded us that Abbas has the same goal as Hamas (and as Arafat before him) but they differ on means

Erlanger is correct that efforts to prop up Abu Mazen are a waste of time. But he's mistaken that the problem is that Abu Mazen lacks the power to enforce what the world thinks is Abu Mazen's will. Abu Mazen may have more weapons per capita than any army in the world. What Erlanger - and the United States and Tony Blair and Ehud Olmert - don't understand is that Abu Mazen has no desire to rein in the terrorists. For Abu Mazen, first and foremost is preventing the current 'Palestinian' Civil War from getting worse.

Hamas and Fatah don't disagree on their ultimate goal - a 'Palestinian' state reichlet from the (Jordan) River to the (Mediterranean) Sea - they disagree on the method. Hamas wants to destroy Israel now, while Fatah is willing to be more patient and diplomatically correct and to destroy Israel in phases. Fatah has not changed since the Khartoum Conference of 1973 whose final communique called for Israel's phased destruction. Yet the world cannot or does not want to see that.

Since the editorial mentions American passivity and Israeli obstructionism, it's proper to address these issues.

There was no American government that pushed more for peace in the Middle East than the Clinton administration. Did all that pushing lead to a peace deal at Camp David in July 2000?

And has any Israeli government given more to the Palestinians than the Sharon government a year and a half ago when it ceded Gaza to the PA? And what was the result? A stop to terror? A stop to rockets?

American passivity and Israeli obstructionism are red herrings that have gained a currency. But in the end they are excuses; masking another red herring: Palestinian moderation.

I'm glad that the Washington Post rejected the first two red herrings. Unfortunately, it is much too wedded to the most damaging one. As long as there's phony Palestinian moderation there will be pressure for "movement" in the peace process. Movement, that in the past, has been shown to be quite dangerous.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Blogdigger tags: Israel, Washington Post, Palestinian Authority, Peace Process, Mahmoud Abbas, Hamas.