Posted on 01/28/2005 8:12:04 AM PST by Nate1984
Recently elected Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas has been playing a tenuous game of survival in his first month in office and soon his game of diplomacy must give way to decisive action either for or against terrorism. Abbas is caught between two groups who both possess the power to topple him and must choose a path befitting his survival.
On one hand are the Israelis and the West, who have high hopes that Abbas will choose a path of peace over the path of terrorism that his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, so ardently stuck to. If these hopes are not met and if Abbas is shown to be either complicit in terrorism or completely inept in stopping it, his already flimsy government will be denied the financial backing from Israel and the West that is barely keeping him afloat. This backing is largely tied to peaceful negotiations and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has repeatedly announced that this will not occur unless all terrorist activity ceases.
On the other hand, there are the terrorist groups like Hamas. They enjoy both street presence and considerable support within Palestine and have stated clearly that they will seek to overthrow any government attempting to end the jihad against Israel, especially now. With Sharon's unilateral "Disengagement Plan" to withdraw from Gaza already in its early stages, Hamas has gone for broke. Almost all of Hamas' leadership has been killed or imprisoned by the Israeli anti-terror campaign and the organization is beginning to flounder. Despite this and heavy casualties in skirmishes, Hamas terrorists continue to persistently launch mortar attacks from Gaza, occasionally killing an Israeli civilian in nearby settlements. The reason for this persistence is clear - if Hamas can portray the Israeli pullback of settlers from Gaza as involuntary and forced due to fighting, Hamas will score the victory needed to justify itself in the eyes of Palestinians. With so much at stake, it's no wonder that earlier this week, Abu Hafsa, a leader of the Hamas movement in Gaza said: "We will fight him [Abbas] if he even so much as thinks about fighting the resistance and helping Sharon."
One side demands that terrorism must end and the other side demands that it continue. Both sides are capable of Abbas' downfall. How then, does Abbas appease both Israel and the terrorists?
A good first start is by incorporating terrorists into the security force and then announcing that the security force is being sent off to prevent terrorism. Sound like something out of catch-22? Sadly, it's not. Last Monday, a Palestinian official anonymously told Al-Jazeera "The decision has been made to put members of the al-Aqsa Brigades in the Palestinian security services." He added, "Abu Mazin [Abbas] has told us that this must happen as soon as possible."
The quiet announcement to incorporate a lethal arm of the Palestinian terrorist movements into the security force was followed just three days later with a major announcement to western media sources. With the widespread approval of the West, Abbas deployed 1,000 members of the Palestinian security force to the border with a mission to "prevent" attacks. Such deception is already reminiscent of the Arafat era.
To further affirm his western support, Abbas is currently organizing a truce between the terrorists and Israel, supposedly demonstrating his choice of a nonviolent solution. Israeli government sources have already agreed that if offered a truce, they will "respond to quiet with quiet." The tricky part for Abbas to secure this public relations boost is to now bring groups like Hamas into the agreement when they are inherently against peaceful initiatives. Article 13 of the Hamas founding covenant blatantly states "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
How exactly is Abbas negotiating with a group inherently against negotiations? A possible solution was presented in a statement made last week by a Hamas spokesman to Al-Jazeera: "Hamas is not seriously thinking about a truce now, but if Abu Mazin asks for a 'hudna', [strategic cease-fire], if it is in the Palestinian interest and there is no manipulation behind the scenes, we will not hesitate to agree."
Well, someone is obviously being manipulated. How can it be that one side's truce in the interests of peace is another side's cease-fire in the ongoing battle? Which is the side being manipulated?
The answer is that we will soon find out. Currently both sides seem to be wary of Abbas' intentions. In the next few months, he will define his path by doing one of two things. He may decide to take measures to actively dissolve the terrorist groups, a move that will most likely spark a civil war. Given his current track record, this option rests on the assumption that he has been deceptively mustering western support before feeling secure enough to take concrete action. His second option would be to continue his doublespeak, passively allowing the terrorist groups to remain whilst deceiving the west. With this option, his hope would be that by the time the West and Israeli public catch on to his games, he would already be firmly in place as the Palestinian leader. Between potentially igniting a civil war or playing a game of passive diplomacy, which option do you think Abbas is more likely to choose?
Ping!
This is naive. The EU will continue to fund the PA whether or not it engages in terrorism. In fact, the EU is more likely to continue to fund the PA if the terrorism continues. If it stops, Palestine falls off the radar and will eventually lose its pizazz in Europe. That will probably cause funding to fall.
My alltime favorite Abbas song is "Dancing Que...."
Wait a sec...
Never mind. That was Arafat. Sorry!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.