Wednesday, July 18th | 6 Av 5778

March 7, 2018 11:32 am

The Abbas Mythology

avatar by Mitchell Bard

Email a copy of "The Abbas Mythology" to a friend

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas speaks during a meeting of the Palestinian Central Council in Ramallah, Jan. 14, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Mohamad Torokman.

A recent article in The Atlantic about “The Tragedy of Mahmoud Abbas” noted: “In him, the world saw a reformist, a leader who could get the Palestinians to the table and possibly clear the hurdle of the two-state solution.”

This was the mythical Abbas who never really existed. But this myth allowed the Palestinian Authority president to become the world’s favorite Palestinian.

Only now, according to the same article, has the world woken up to the realization that Abas has “morphed into a bureaucratic tyrant at home, hostile to America and downright incendiary towards Israel.”

The truth is that Abbas was never a moderate, never recognized as a leader of the Palestinians and never willing or able to reach a peace agreement with Israel.

Related coverage

July 17, 2018 1:26 pm

Parsha Devarim: The Effective Critic

The first verse of Devarim, the fifth and culminating book of the Torah, sounds prosaic: “These are the words that...

Today, polls show that most Palestinians want Abbas to resign. He has failed to achieve anything to improve the lives of his people, and he has proven a corrupt megalomaniac, who repeatedly cancelled elections to effectively make himself president for life. Little publicity is given to the fact that he has been so unpopular that he can hardly travel outside Ramallah. I don’t believe he has ever been to Gaza, at least not since Hamas took over, even though roughly 40% of his constituents live there.

He also appears to have become unhinged with age and frustration. As The Atlantic noted, he gave a speech last month that, “deployed antisemitic tropes, undercut the Jewish connection to Israel, and blamed everyone from Oliver Cromwell to Napoleon to Winston Churchill for Israel’s creation.”

The magazine said that Abbas is revealing his “true colors.”

Those who follow the issues were already aware he is an antisemite, but peace processors and other wishful thinkers give him a pass on the pretext that “peace can only be made with your enemies.” Thus, for example, his Ph.D. thesis questioning the veracity of the Holocaust and comparing Zionism to Nazism are overlooked as youthful indiscretions.

More recently, however, the magazine noted, “he’s accused Israeli rabbis of supporting the poisoning of Palestinian water wells [a blood libel], claimed Jews had ‘fabricated’ history, and insisted he ‘would never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel.’

Abbas is also a proven liar, and he told some whoppers in his February speech before the UN Security Council. He claimed, for example, that the creation of Israel produced six million Palestinian refugees who live in exile. The actual number of refugees resulting from the Arab invasion of Israel in 1948 was fewer than 650,000; furthermore, most Palestinians live within the boundaries of historic Palestine, not in exile. The fact that he refers to the war as the Nakba (catastrophe) is also an indication that he considers all of Israel “occupied territory” — not just the West Bank.

Abbas also repeated the canard that the Palestinians are “descendants of the Canaanites” to suggest that the Palestinians have a better claim to the land because they were there before the Jews. Of all the people who lived in the area in ancient times, only the Jews remain. The Palestinian Arabs are aboriginal to Arabia.

This Abbas statement should have had delegates laughing in the aisles: “Our national institutions are recognized by international organizations for their merit and work, which is based on the rule of law, accountability and transparency, and empowerment of women and youth in an environment of tolerance, co-existence of civilizations and nondiscrimination.”

Equally comical was his claim to pursue peace. He insisted Israel’s intransigence has caused the failure of all peace initiatives dating back to Camp David. It was Yasser Arafat, however, who turned down statehood at Camp David, and Abbas who rejected Ehud Olmert’s two-state solution, and Abbas who has refused to negotiate with Israel’s prime minister for the last eight years.

Abbas predictably railed against settlements, but he should be taking credit for their expansion. Thanks to his intransigence, the population of the West Bank has grown. He has the power to stop the settlements by agreeing to a peace agreement. Absent negotiations, Israel has no obligation to halt their growth.

Some on the far-left have hailed Abbas for laying out a peace initiative at the UN, despite the fact it contained the usual nonstarters — a call for an “international peace conference,” recognition of “the state of Palestine based on the 1967 borders, establishing East Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine, “implementation of the Arab Peace Initiative,” and the demand that Palestinian refugees be allowed to overrun Israel.

Abbas’ fans have also refused to acknowledge his turn to Islamism. They ignore the Palestinians’ abandonment of the goal of creating a “secular democratic state.” This was always propaganda expressed in English to Western audiences that was contradicted by what the Palestinians said in Arabic. The hoax became clear when the Palestinians drafted a constitution making Islam the state religion.

It is more difficult for Abbas to get away with doubletalk today because translations of his Arabic statements are now readily available. Still, those invested in the idea that he is Israel’s “peace partner” ignore what he says in Arabic.

I saw no coverage, for example, of his speech at the prestigious Islamic Al-Azhar University in Cairo, except for a column by Dr. Reuven Berko in Israel Hayom, which noted that it “was for all intents and purposes a blatant call for religious war against Israel.” In the speech, Abbas reiterated his frequent entreaty for the Islamic world to “liberate Jerusalem, the eternal capital of Palestine, from the hands of the occupier.” Abbas, Berko says, believes that the Palestinians “are charged with the godly mission” of destroying Israel.

Western supporters also willfully ignore Abbas’ support of terror, from the days when he was the number three man in the PLO during its terrorist heyday until today — when he provides financial incentives to kill Jews through his “pay-to-slay” policy.

Abbas had the chutzpah to tell the UN Security Council that he is “committed to fostering a culture of peace” and “rejection of violence” — all while glorifying martyrs and educating young Palestinians that all of Israel is Palestine.

He said this with a straight face, while increasing payments to the families of suicide bombers and Palestinians in Israeli jails for attacking and murdering Jews. During his Al-Azhar speech, Abbas praised the 30 shahids (martyrs) who died attacking Jews since the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.

Abbas still has fans in the West, especially those who believe in the Arabist view that Israel needs to be saved from itself. One of the traits of Arabists is that their convictions cannot be shaken by evidence. Therefore, they continue to assert that Abbas is a partner for peace and that America should not only support him, but pressure Israel to capitulate to his demands.

The more appropriate response is to dismiss Abbas as a demagogue and encourage the Palestinians to select a successor who rejects radical Islamist ideology, and who is prepared in word and deed to demonstrate a commitment to peace with Israel.

Dr. Mitchell Bard is executive director of the American-Israeli Cooperative Enterprise and author/editor of 24 books including “The Arab Lobby” and the novel “After Anatevka: Tevye in Palestine.”

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

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

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Paul

    The idea of Palestinian independence in their own west bank state, is a nice idea, born in the Oslo talks. But the problem is, that is cannot work – it gives none of the partners what they most want and need, and will not end the conflict.
    Mainstream Israel wants security above all. Other nationalistic Jews want the right to live on the west bank (the idea that Jews be forbidden to live there because they are Jews would be abhorred anywhere else in the Western world). But Mainly, the Palestinians would not get what they really want and need.
    What the Palestinians want is to live in dignity, with their own army, in a viable economy, not under Jewish rule, and with a decent government. And they want to achieve this by creating an independent state on the West Bank. Even if they get all they say they want: they will be in a small, not economically a viable state, without an army, and probably without a decent government – at best, a corrupt one like those they have (where the family of the leaders become billionaires by appropriating the foreign aid meant for the people), and most likely, they will get Hamas leadership, gained by shooting PLO leaders in the knees or throwing them off tall buildings, as they did in Gaza. They will become free of Jewish rule, but will live, deprived, opposite the flourishing Jewish state. They will NOT consider this the end to the conflict. Israel will have Hamas along their longest borders, and the settlers will be forbidden to live in their historic holy land – because they are Jews.
    Bad solution.
    The good solution nobody is trying to promote is: give the land back to Jordan, who it was taken from. Adjust the border to give Israel security. Under the enlightened leadership of Abdullah,, the Palestinians will achieve all they really want and deserve. Israel will have security, and the settlers could conceivably be in Israeli territory or live in peace under Jordanian sovereignty. Jordan and Israel would jointly provide security, preventing the Hamas rising to power, as they already do. Jerusalem would be really removed from the table – the Jordanians already have their capital.
    That solution gives all participants what they really most want, and can bring an end to the conflict.