Caroline Glick: Who is being delusional?
Following the interview’s broadcast, Lavie countered that if Abbas were truly interested in establishing an independent Palestinian state, he wouldn’t have cared about the political fortunes of the Israeli prime minister. He would have taken the offer and run, knowing that, as Olmert said, the likelihood that he’d get a similar offer in the next 50 years was nonexistent.Brooke Goldstein: Oslo is Over
The most notable reaction to Abbas’s admission was the reaction that never came. The Israeli Left had no reaction to his interview.
Abbas is the hero of the Left.
He is their partner. He is their moderate. He is their man of peace. Abbas is the Palestinian leader to whom every leftist politician worth his snuff, from opposition leader Yitzhak Herzog to the Meretz Knesset faction make regular pilgrimages to prove their devotion to peace.
Their man in Ramallah received the most radical offer ever to see the light of day. And rather than accept it, he rejected it out of hand and refused to meet with Olmert ever again, and he openly admits it.
The Left’s non-response is not surprising. Abbas’s decision to end all speculation about whether or not he is a man of peace is merely the latest blow reality has cast on their two-state formula.
The Left’s policy of land for peace failed more than 15 years ago when Abbas’s boss, Yasser Arafat, preferred war to peace and initiated the worst campaign of terrorism that Israel had ever experienced.
Yet for the last 15 years, the Israeli “peace camp” has never wavered in its view that, despite it all, Israel must rid itself of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas wants the Oslo Accords to be annulled. We should give him what he wants.Compromise for Now, the End of Israel for Later
Mr. Abbas declared his intention to annul the agreements after promising a “bombshell” in his speech to the UN General Assembly last month. Abbas claimed he would use “all peaceful and legal means” to end the peace process immediately.
His first step? Incitement to genocide.
“[The] Al-Aqsa [mosque on the Temple Mount] is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre,” Mr. Abbas declared on Palestinian Authority TV. “They [Jews] have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet.” Thus began what some consider to be the third Palestinian Intifada, or violent uprising. Mr. Abbas continued, “We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah. With the help of Allah, every martyr will be in heaven, and every wounded will get his reward.”
Prior to the signing of Oslo I in 1993 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was a designated terror organization in the United States and Israel. Established to fight a guerilla war against the Jewish state, its governing document — the Palestine National Charter — called for Israel’s destruction. Member organizations of the PLO were responsible for bombings, hijackings, and the notorious 1972 Munich massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes. The PLO’s main political faction, Fatah, led by PLO founder Yasser Arafat, carried out numerous acts of terror killing thousands of innocent men, women and children. The PLO was declassified as a terror group in 1994, only after the international community recognized the Oslo process as the path to Arab-Israeli peace.
Now that Mr. Abbas wants to end Oslo, he may get more that he bargained for. With the dissolution of the agreement, the PLO could return to its pre-1993 designation as a terrorist organization. As a result, funds would no longer flow from U.S. Treasury coffers and taxes would no longer be distributed to Palestinian officials through Israeli banks or customs unions. Under Executive Order 12947, individuals or entities attempting to transfer money to “foreign terrorists that disrupt the Middle East peace process”—such as the PLO—would be liable under federal laws criminalizing the provision of material support to terrorism.
Against the bloody background of stabbings and other deadly violence in Israel and the West Bank, Daniel Polisar’s thorough analysis of Palestinian polling data, “What Do Palestinians Want?,” makes essential reading for anyone interested in more than just the grim daily headlines. His central point—that the majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza have long supported “armed struggle” against Israelis—is not only accurate but a fact regularly distorted by media focus on the seemingly “individual” nature of today’s terrorist incidents. Polisar’s conclusions, moreover, are well grounded in exhaustive research into the mounds of survey data that have piled up ever since the first Oslo accords of 1993—which is when I myself started to work with Palestinian colleagues in launching the first scientific polls of the Palestinian population.
Rather than repeating Polisar’s findings, I’d like to begin with a few observations and quibbles, then introduce some recent findings, mainly from a poll I conducted in June, and conclude with what I hope to see in Polisar’s larger study-in-progress on this subject.
First, quibbles. On the basis of survey results and other data, I believe that the reality is in some ways better than Polisar judges and in some ways worse. Better: there is rich evidence that the Palestinian public, when presented with a “package deal,” is considerably more inclined to accept compromise with Israel than when issues are viewed in isolation. This applies even to the most contentious issues like the future of Jerusalem, the “right of return,” or recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Worse: Polisar accepts the notion that most Palestinians support violence in spite of Mahmoud Abbas’s steady and repeated opposition to it. In fact, Abbas and other Palestinian leaders consistently send a mixed message on this key issue, opposing violence in the abstract while continuing to glorify individual terrorists in official statements, ceremonies, and the media.























