If Abbas compromised, he would be killed.

By Arlene Kushner

I want to call your attention to a JINSA Report (#769).

Says JINSA: Rice has been pushing Israel to surrender 95% of Judea and Samaria. In return for this we would allegedly receive US “security commitments” and a pledge from Abbas that this would represent “end of hostilities” and withdrawal of claims for “right of return.”

Abbas, however, according to information from MiddleEast Newsline, (MNL) refused, saying he would resign before agreeing to this. This provides a new perspective on reports that he would quit, which had come from Abu Toameh. While I tend not to take Abbas’s all-too-frequent threats to quit seriously, in light of this information it would seem that this time he means it.

The reason is simple. As MNL also reported, Jordan’s King Abdullah, when meeting with Rice, rebuffed this plan, explaining that Abbas would be killed within days of agreeing to such a plan, and Judea and Samaria would be taken over by Hamas (not incidentally, creating danger for Jordan).

As JINSA elaborated:

    “[Abba’s] hold on power and his life are not tied to the further removal of Israeli checkpoints or quality-of-life issues for the Palestinian people. His future is directly tied to maintaining the Palestinian hard line. He is not empowered to give up the ‘right or return’ on behalf of other Palestinians or decide to ‘end the conflict.'”


What we see here, then, is yet another attempt by Rice to meddle in Middle East politics without having a clue as to what she is doing, or what potential exists for her to cause serious damage.

Aside from the possible demise of Abbas, a Hamas takeover, and risks to Jordan, there is serious risk to Israel (this is addition to our legal and moral right to hold on to Judea and Samaria): Rice plays fast and loose with our security, and has on several occasions before this asked us to relinquish situations that were important for that security. Most immediately, this is the case with her demands that we remove roadblocks.

But what her plan here does is ask us to trust that the US will protect us if the Palestinians should attack after we pulled out. This is, at bottom, a recognition that it’s not safe to turn over to the PA major parts of Judea and Samaria — which means she shouldn’t be asking us to do it. For us to trust that the US would protect us would be the height of folly.

Bottom line is that Rice is so invested in forging an agreement between Israel and the PA that she is oblivious to the fallout that such an agreement would generate.

She ultimately works not just against us, but also against her own country’s genuine best interests.

May 8, 2008 | 2 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

2 Comments / 2 Comments

  1. Lets take what our doom sayers contend is worst scenario case, that being we loose Abbas and gain Hamas. I contend this would be in fact a best case scenario where we would have the excuse to first break out of all Peace processes begin to turn the clock back to pre Oslo situation and go in kick the hell out of Hamas and start their journey what is left of them into Jordan. They will destabilize Jordan even getting rid of the little King, keep attacking Israel which will eventually force us into Jordan taking over that part of the Balfour Declaration and our biblical inheritance, they then will keep attacking Israel fro Iraq and eventually we invade part of Iraq and take our land up the the Euphrates. This scenario will happen I suspect over many years but this looks like the most likely scenario. Wishful thinking probably, but I can dream.

    The most likley scenario will be different. Palestinians will always remain hostile to Israel, as Jews took over what the Palestinians think is their land. Such hostility would translate into low-level sabotage, but not a meaningful war.

    The peace process lacks a historical precedent. Never did hostile states negotiate peace for decades under fire. Peace never came through negotiations, but only through one side’s defeat. America negotiated with Vietnam for decades, but Vietnam was not at war with America; North Vietnam was at war with the South – and utterly defeated it. So the peace process failed in Vietnam, like elsewhere. Peace process is a leftist fallacy, a primitive rationalist approach to immensely complex problems which in fact can be exhausted, but never solved.

    Exhausting the Palestinian problem is easy, and Israel did it with success: behead the national organizations, expel their leaders, everyone of the slightest stance in Palestinian society. No great numbers are involved: ousting a few thousand top members of Fatah, Hamas, and other popular organizations would do. When Israel kept systematically expelling PLO associates in 1960-80s, everything was quiet on our Western Front. Even though the PLO tried ruling Palestine through its Department of Popular Organizations which oversaw everything down to students unions, it was nothing compared to the electrifying fact of Arafat’s presence in the West Bank.
    Beilin-Peres clique brought Arafat from Tunisia to the West Bank, literally let the jinn of terrorism out of the bottle. They meant good, they meant Arafat to be their peace puppet. So they were wrong. As usual, societies pay in blood for leftists’ crumbling projects.

    The majority of the Netherlands’ population was good to Jews during Holocaust. But the problem is, the Dutch were also good toward their minority who collaborated with Germans. The minority hunted us, and so 75% of Jews were murdered. The majority of Israelis are decent Jews who wish their country well. But unless they stand up to the vicious leftist minority, too few Jews would survive in Israel.