Take it as given that any Palestinian “government” will be anti-American, antisemitic and pro-terrorist, imbued with a burning zeal to deliver aid and comfort to our enemies. A Palestinian who openly takes different stances will be dead long before he can become a cabinet minister. Doesn’t it then make sense to do what we can to ensure that this perpetual adversary is run by men who are corrupt, incompetent and unpopular? And how better to ensure that than by rewarding the incompetent, unpopular Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah kleptocrats? As Ronald Reagan said, If you want more of a thing, subsidize it.
If that’s the thought behind resuming the flow of Western cash into Fatah’s coffers, at least our leaders are thinking strategically. Also strategic, though not fully baked, would be embracing Fatah as “the enemy of my enemy”. The trouble there is that we remain Fatah’s preferred enemy, and it is too feeble, as its rapid defeat in Gaza reveals, to be of much use as a proxy friend.
But the notion that Abbas and his faction are “moderates” who want to make peace with Israel requires faith that passeth all understanding. If he is a secret peacemaker, the secret is closely guarded. Andrew Bostum has a cento of quotes:
- October 2006: “It is not required of Hamas, or of Fatah, or of the Popular Front to recognize Israel.”
- December 2006: “Saddam Hussein has entered history as a symbol of Pan-Arab nationalism.”
- January 2007: “The sons of Israel are corrupting humanity on earth.”
- January 2007: “We have a legitimate right to direct our guns against Israeli occupation ... Our rifles, all our rifles are aimed at The Occupation.
- February 2007: “We must unite the Hamas and Fatah blood in the struggle against Israel as we did at the beginning of the intifada. We want a political partnership with Hamas.
Hamas, however, decided that it could get along without such a “partner”.
The best that one can say for “President” Abbas is that he doesn’t appear to be as personally corrupt as his predecessor, Yasser Arafat. On the other hand, he is patently ineffectual, which makes his touted “moderation”, even if it were real, inconsequential. He hasn’t been able to clamp down on his associates’ thievery, couldn’t bring law and order to his domain and, finally, was unable to put up more than token resistance to Hamas.
The Bush Administration’s decision to try to prop up this Great and Mighty Oz would be incomprehensible if it didn’t reflect the State Department’s long-held roseate view of the Palestinian “leadership”. Fantasizing that the Palestinians, who declared their solidarity with Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War and danced in the streets at the news of 9/11, are only a concession away from peaceful co-existence with their Israeli neighbors is more pleasant than the tough work of keeping savagery within bounds.
Further reading: David Frum, “Even This Won’t Change Fatah”
Caroline B. Glick, “Grounded in Fantasy”
Fouad Ajami, “Brothers to the Bitter End”
Comments