Abbas Uses Fatah Speech to Reject U.S. Plan
The day after the speech, Fahmi Zaarir, vice-chairman of the Fatah Revolutionary Council, stated on Radio Palestine on March 11 that Abbas had reported on “a framework plan to perpetuate a number of principles in a final agreement,” and that Abbas remains faithful to Fatah’s founding principles. Zaarir did not quote Abbas directly, but said, “Everyone knows what these principles are: Palestine’s borders from the Jordan River to the 1967 lines and no compromise regarding all of Jerusalem based on the ’67 lines.” Regarding refugees, “They themselves will agree based on UN decisions and the Arab Initiative.” Abbas spoke of the “right of return” of refugees – of all refugees – into the State of Israel itself. Even those who elect not to move to Israel would all receive compensation, Zaarir said. States which housed the refugees – Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq and Syria – would also be compensated for their hospitality. Zaarir emphasized that Abbas repeated emphatically that he would under no circumstances accept the “Jewish state” principle and that he would bring any agreement – if one was reached – to the entire Palestinian people, wherever they may be, for their approval. (h/t Bob Knot)Elliott Abrams: Abbas and 'right of return' will defeat Kerry
By making the "right of return" a personal right for each Palestinian, Abbas is saying the PLO has no right to negotiate over it and no right to sign a agreement that defeats or even limits that "right." If that's really the PLO position, there will never be an agreement.Sarah Honig: What Obama furtively furthers
Second, if Abbas doesn't really mean it, he is narrowing his own negotiating room to near zero and obviously not preparing his own people for the compromises peace will entail.
Third, his definition of "refugee" is as broad as it could possibly be. According to Abbas, a Palestinian who left Israel in 1948 or 1967 has the right to move to Israel or to decline, but his "no" does not even bind his own foreign-born children. His son, and presumably grandson, who have never set foot in Israel and may well have citizenship in (for example) Canada have their own separate rights to move to Israel. Five million separate choices, says Abbas.
One outrageously insolent remark was remarkably ignored in the hullaballoo generated by US President Barack Obama’s Bibi-bashing interview on the eve of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s latest White House visit.
Wedged into the presidential malarkey was a new allegation against the Mideast’s sole democracy. Obama accused Israel of no less than continuing to “place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions.”
Huh? Really? What restrictions? And does Obama now also presume to pass judgment on what are indisputably our domestic affairs? Is there no limit to his meddling and hubris?













