Wednesday, February 21st | 6 Adar 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

December 30, 2014 4:39 pm

Washington Post Editorial Slams Abbas for ‘Insisting on Failure’

avatar by Algemeiner Staff

Email a copy of "Washington Post Editorial Slams Abbas for ‘Insisting on Failure’" to a friend

PA President Mahmoud Abbas "insists on failure," says the Washington Post. Photo: Twitter

A powerful editorial in today’s Washington Post has charged Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas with “pushing yet another quixotic attempt to have the U.N. Security Council impose Palestinian terms for a settlement on Israel.”

Observing that Abbas refused to accept a U.S.-brokered “framework” for the creation of a Palestinian state in a meeting with President Barack Obama last March, the Post pointed out that had he done so, “key Palestinian demands, including a stipulation that the territory of the future Palestine be based on Israel’s 1967 borders,” would have enjoyed American backing.

Instead, Abbas’s strategy of gaining unilateral recognition for a Palestinian state at the United Nations is leading the Palestinians to a dead end. “Not only does this text have no chance of being approved — notwithstanding the tensions between the Obama administration and the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu, the United States would exercise its veto, if necessary — but the Palestinians’ support on the Security Council is weaker this week than it probably will be next month after a membership rotation. Yet Mr. Abbas appears ready to insist on failing, just a few months after turning aside a U.S. initiative that had at least some chance of delivering the state he says he wants,” the Post stated.

The Post concluded: “Mr. Abbas does, of course, have a choice. He could endorse the framework laboriously negotiated by Secretary of State John F. Kerry and challenge Mr. Netanyahu — or his successor after Israel’s upcoming election — to resume negotiations. Statehood would then be on the table — but the 79-year-old Palestinian leader would have to commit himself formally to compromises he has until now discussed only in private with U.S. and Israeli leaders. Rather than lobby at the United Nations, he would have to attempt for the first time to sell those concessions to his own people.”

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • DACON9


    Arabs went in the 7th century to conquer rome who conquered and occupied ISRAEL.

    which as always, follow the JEWS and you follow creative opportunities inovations and improvements to where ever a JEW goes.

    ”KNOW” THE facts jack!!!.

    furthermore, xtians are “””NOT””” friends of JEWS OR ISRAEL and never ever were, ASK THEM TO SUPPORT THE JEW TO PRAY AND LIVE AND SUPPORT ISRAEL AS MOSES LAWS REQUIRES…
    and they will remain silent.

  • Eric R.

    Given the left-wing slant at the comPost (not as bad as the NY Slimes, but still bad), this headline surprised me, until I read it and realized their anger at Abbas is really for dissing their holy Obamessiah.

  • Reform School

    Itbach el Yahud!/Slaughter the Jews!

    Neither Fatah, the Palestine Liberation Organization, Hamas nor Pinocchio have ever displayed more desire for peaceful negotiations with Jews, Christians, Bhuddists, Hindus or Martians than Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Britistan, Frankistan, Ameristan or dozens of other provinces of Islamistan. Bloodless negotiation to accept anything not Islamic is as hateful to them as Hebrew shepherds were to ancient Egyptians! ‘Peace by Submission to Allah’ is all the Muslim horde has known since the days illiterate warrior Prophet Muhammad began conquering the world, 1400 years ago.

    Until Barack Obama and other irrational progressives infesting the Lame Stream Media and U.N. embassies learn that given 1, 100 or ALL the votes in such a worldwide ‘Peace’ organization, their demonstrated behavior since they discovered the Oil Weapon a century ago will go on.

    Have the Grand Mufti, George Habash, Yasir Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas behaved any differently? Abbas’ refusal to call new elections has kept him illegally in power longer than he held it legally. As long as progressive ideologues in the media cover for Obama for no other reason than they fear criticizing the first “Black” U.S. president will get them called ‘racist’ will prove it!

  • Joseph Ozer

    If Abbas actually did sign a peace agreement with Israel he would be assassinated by radical Palestinians. Being a successful failure enhances his stature as a proud Arab who refused to compromise with mere Jews.

  • mh8169

    I find it interesting that the Arab world had many opportunities to make peace with Israel. The official refusal occurred in 1947/8; the second with Arafat with former President Clinton when former PM Barak was the leader of Israel; then, there was the incredible offer by former PM Olmert and now this. If this does not sound like insanity, then, please tell me differently.

  • Marshall Schwartz

    Abbas is merely following in the footsteps of his predecessor Yasir Arafat who, when offered 98 percent of his demands in 2000, as part of Clinton’s last-ditch effort to bring the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation to an end during his presidency, demurred, declaring, “There are other considerations.” [This from the mouth of someone who was in the room at time.] IMO, at this time, no Palestinian leader can accept any deal that falls short of a total river-to-the-sea concession, else they would suffer the same fate as Anwar Sadat.

  • Kerry’s grand scheme has no support in Israel,is an imposed idea from an unattached outsider with limited measuring skills in political realities,it has as much chance of success as the American Indian getting their lands back

  • Israel must declare: Possession is nine tenths of the law
    Netanyahu’s speech in the U.N. is a shining example of a fundamental flaw in Israeli Public relations (hasbara): Israel doesn’t stop apologizing and asking for support. It never stops asking for permission. Other heads of state used the UN platform to tell other countries what to do. If we were a normal country, our Prime Minister would point to his audience with an accusatory finger and say, “you did this!” He would accuse the “moderate” Palestinian leadership of giving its children over to Hamas with their never-ending defiance.
    It is about time we stop apologizing and start accusing the real opponents of peace “Moderate” Abu Mazen.
    Netanyahu must make full use of the equating of Hamas and ISIS, an organization seen as a strategic threat to the West, by making clear that the failure to stop the former is a direct cause of the rise of the latter. He would make clear that to protect themselves they need to ensure that Israel, which stands on the front lines of the Islamist assault on the Western world, needs to be defended, as a statement, not a request, a demand, not a plea.
    Our real problem is not anti-Semitism, the Muslims or even the settlements. Our real problem is our desire to be loved. By arguing that Israel is a small country surrounded by enemies and in need of allies we neglect the fact they need us no less than we need them. Just to show how desperate we are to be liked, as opposed to any other country on earth, we see the virulent criticism against our country as something positive to be listened to and absorbed. As though there is truly “constructive criticism” in the messy and Machiavellian world of international politics.
    The EU has an article in every “association agreement” it reaches with Middle Eastern countries which deals with the preservation of Human Rights. Only with Israel does the EU threaten every so often to suspend the agreement for violating this article. Only is Israel subject to the possibility of harming of bilateral ties based on an issue not directly connected to them. Does anyone seriously doubt that the human rights situation in Israel is better than in Egypt, Syria or Algeria? Does anyone doubt that Israeli criticism of treatment of immigrants in Europe would be contemptuously rejected (justifiably!) as an unjustified attempt at interfering in another country’s internal affairs?
    What’s Our Dignity Worth?
    The Nation of Israel has invaluable assets for a declining Europe. It provides a unique contribution to the west by fighting emerging Middle Eastern threats as the only western forward post in the region with intelligence and operational capabilities which are second to none. It even has what to contribute in helping to ensure and improve moral standards in fighting terror. Time and again, we try to cooperate with a world which speaks of morals and justice but in truth is run primarily by “personal goals, fear and interest.”
    We are so desperate to be a member of the club of liberal democracies that we don’t even try to use these assets as the price of admission, but forgo them in the pointless hope that we will be loved enough on the merits to be allowed to join. We reject with contempt the idea of tying our support for fighting just causes in exchange for support in fights no less just.

    Even the most moral countries (which are not Israel) see first and foremost to their own interests. They have no incentive to help Israel when the price for this is paid in negative public opinion in their own country and abroad, when they can get what they want from Israel for free. On the contrary, they have an incentive to force Israel to standards no other country is held to – and unfortunately, Israel agrees to them far too often.
    After the Six Day War (in other words, right after the infamous “occupation”) the liberation of our ancestral lands, we were admired the world over. Now we’re just repeatedly used. We supposedly dishonored the victory – not the Arab states, not anti-Semitism and not even “Peace Now.” Israel. The Israeli leadership which keeps begging and pleading for the world to “recognize Israel’s right to exist” are helping to cause horrific damage to Israel throughout the world.
    Sovereign states don’t ask or plead for permission, and Israel who is fighting bitter battles for its existence for the past seven decades – as opposed to many other countries – has nothing to apologize for.

  • Julian Clovelley

    The presumption here seems to be that the Palestinian leader has not taken the Veto into account

    Think again, What happens WHEN the veto is employed?

    Israeli’s conservative Zionists have gone out of their way to attack the UN, the Geneva Conventions as applied to the issues of Occupation and Settlement, the International Criminal Court, the body of much International Law, and many international bodies, including charities and Amnesty International. The international reaction has had detrimental effect on Jewish communities worldwide as an unfair kind of “presumed guilt by association”

    And then the Veto is used on its behalf in the UN?

    Think about it in terms of that being the real agenda. What does it say to the developing world about the “legitimacy” of the UN and its resolutions – such as UNGA181 of 1947

    Using the Veto might just be a very big mistake with major ramifications far beyond Middle East issues.
    Zionism think too much within its own context and does not recognise that for most of the world its internal beliefs are mostly rubbish. It might be far better to let the Resolution through and deal with the consequences through normal diplomacy and foreign policy afterwards. Contrary to one of Zionisms “myths” – sooner or later the ending of the Occupation and closure of settlements, or their integration into a Palestinian State must be placed on the table. Look only at the map!