On February 13, 2018 the Palestinian, Saeb Erekat wrote an
article, laying out the Palestinian case. On that same day, the presumed to be
American, Elliott Abrams responded, laying out the Israeli case.
The Erekat article came under the title: “Forget Trump's U.S. as the Mideast 's
Mediator,” published in the New York Times. The Elliott Abrams response came
under the title: “A Palestinian Propagandist: Understanding Saeb Erekat's
Ludicrous Times Op-Ed” and the subtitle: “Everything you need to know about
Saeb Erekat can be found in the Jenin 'massacre.'” It was published in The Weekly Standard.
Making use of the deceptive Jewish trick of smothering the
current debate with smoke and noise imported from a time long ago that no one
will want to revisit, Elliott Abrams said what amounts to the following: Never
mind the current debate. Concentrate instead on what I say happened 16 years
ago in Jenin.
In fact, all sides in this big event were thoroughly fleshed
out at the time. The debate unfolded over several days, and was handled by all
major publications. So now, Abrams is spinning the old debate in such a way as
to conclude that the readers must not believe their eyes when reading about the
current debate. Instead, they should rely on what he tells them happened 16
years ago in Jenin, and infer from it that they ought to dismiss what Erekat is
saying in the current debate even if it is clear, comprehensive and verifiable.
But what did Erekat say? Well, speaking of President Trump,
this is what he said: “He has taken Israel 's
side while dismissing the roles of international law, international
organizations and American diplomatic tradition in the Middle
East peace process.” This is in reference to Mr. Trump saying he
was abiding by a 22 year old American law which says that America will someday recognize a “unified” Jerusalem– –meaning all of Jerusalem ;
not just the Western part––as the capital of Israel .
The law also gave the President the power to waver its
implementation until certain conditions are fulfilled. Given that Jerusalem was a final status item, several presidents used
the waver since the fate of Jerusalem
had not been decided. Thus, when Trump gave what amounts to Presidential Ascent
to that American law, he nullified the waver and in so doing, violated
international law, international organizations and American diplomatic
tradition; which is what Erekat said President Trump did. All of this means
that Trump has taken the side of Israel ,
rendering America
unfit to play the role of mediator. This should not be too difficult to
understand, even for someone of the Elliott Abrams caliber … but apparently he
had trouble with it.
What else is causing Abrams to go apoplectic? Well, speaking
about the Trump envoys who refused to discuss issues important to the
Palestinians, Erekat said this: “It is as if we have gone back in time –– to
before Oslo –– without acknowledging the painful compromises the Palestinians
have made for peace, including recognizing Israel and trying to build a state on
just 22 percent of the land in the historic Palestine of 1948.” The way that Abrams
responded to Erekat is the manifestation of a habit that’s as Jewish as matzoth
bread. It is that while negotiating with them, if you indicate what you'd be willing
to give up if they reciprocate with something of equal value, they'll pocket
what you said you'll give up, and reciprocate with nothing.
Thus, hiding behind American power and prestige, that's what
the Israelis did, and what Abrams is applauding. What happened at Oslo is that the Jews got the Palestinians to give up 78
percent of Palestine
to the Jews for the promise that they will reciprocate by negotiating in good
faith, addressing all the issues which are important to them, including ending
the occupation. What happened next is that the Palestinians recognized Israel ; the
Jews pocketed that and reciprocated not just with nothing but with the scorn
you see in the manner that Abrams responded to Erekat's article. This is what
he did:
“Erekat returns to the usual Palestinian trope, criticizing
Trump for failing to recognize the painful compromises the Palestinians have
made for peace, including recognizing Israel and trying to build a state on
just 22 percent of the land in the historic Palestine of 1948. It is striking
to call those compromises; the first requires Palestinians to do no more than
recognize reality, and the second to make their best efforts on behalf of their
people”.
Do you know what that means, my friend? It is like the Old
West of centuries ago when highway robbers used to attack passing stagecoaches
and rob the passengers. To avoid a bloody shootout, a wealthy woman offers a
compromise in the form of giving the robbers 78 percent of her jewelry if
they'll let the stagecoach go. And the chief robber says: That's no compromise;
it is recognizing the reality of the situation. He also tells her what she
needs to do now: Learn to make do with only 22 percent of her wealth.