Time to Move Out: The Problem with Mahmoud Abbas and His Authority
By Ramzy
Baroud
It was the moment many had been
waiting for. On January 2, Palestine’s United Nations
envoy, Riyad Mansour formally requested membership at the
International Criminal Court (ICC).
"We are seeking
justice for all the victims that have been killed by Israel,
the occupying power," he said.
There was no
explanation why Palestine’s membership of the Rome Statue
(through which the ICC is governed) was delayed in the first place; of why
no justice was ever sought for thousands of victims in Gaza,
and many in the West Bank and Jerusalem, although such
membership would have been granted much earlier.
In
fact, in 2012, Palestine’s status at the UN was upgraded,
from an observer entity to an ‘observer state’. The move
was largely symbolic, since it was an attempt at breathing
life in the two-state-solution, which was long dead. But it
had one single practical benefit - the coveted membership at
the ICC. Finally, Israel could be held accountable for its
war crimes; finally, a measure of justice was
possible.
Shifting
Strategy?
Yet, for two years, the Palestinian
Authority of Mahmoud Abbas delayed. Not only did Abbas
hesitate and carry on with the same tired charade of peace
process, but he seemed keen on ensuring that Palestinian
unity, even if achieved politically, remained pointless and
ineffective.
But isn’t it better late than
never?
Agency France Press described Abbas’ move as
a “shift in strategy .. away from the US-led negotiation
process.” Indeed, the US seemed peeved by the move,
describing it as “counterproductive”. It will take some
imagination to consider what a ‘productive’ alternative
might be, considering that the US’ unhinged bias, and unconditional support of Israel had
emboldened the rightwing government of Benjamin Netanyahu
into carrying out the most hideous of war crimes.
Yet
this is not exactly about the killing of nearly 2,200
Palestinians, mostly civilians during the 51-day Israeli war
on Gaza last summer. Nor is it about the more than the 400
children who were killed then. Or even the siege on the
Strip, the occupation and illegal settlements in the West
Bank and Jerusalem.
Certainly Abbas had numerous
chances to admonish Israel in the past, cement unity among
his people, use his leverage with Egypt to at least ease the
siege on Gaza, devise a strategy that is centered around
national liberation (not state-building of a state that
doesn’t exist), end the ongoing theft of Palestinian
resources by the PA itself, establish a system of
accountability, and so on. Instead, he kept his faith in
Washington, playing the wait-and-see game of Secretary of
State John Kerry centered on a single premise: pleading with
Netanyahu to change his ways and freeze settlement
construction, which never happened.
Conventional
analysis suggests that Abbas’s ICC move was the direct
outcome of the expected failure of a UN Security Council
resolution that was put to vote a few days earlier.
The US, Israel’s main political guardian was, naturally
expected to veto the resolution, which would have imposed a
deadline on Israel to end its occupation of Palestinian
territories. The US used the veto, and only eight member
states voted in approval. A day later, Abbas signed the
application for the ICC, among others; the following day,
the application was formally submitted.
But a ‘shift
in strategy’ it was not.
Abbas’ Balancing
Act
The current political strategy of the PA
reflects the unique qualities of Abbas himself, and is a
testimony to his impressive abilities to find the right
political balance, ultimately aimed at assuring his survival
at the helm.
If Abbas’s own political subsistence
largely depends on Israel’s acquiescent and US backing,
one can rarely imagine a scenario in which Netanyahu and his
war generals are arraigned as war criminals before the
ICC.
It is unconceivable that Abbas had finally
decided to break away from the restrictive role of being an
active member of the US managed club of Arab
‘moderates’.
To do so, it would mean that Abbas is
ready to risk it all for the sake of his people, which would
be a major departure from everything that Abbas – the
‘pragmatic’, ‘moderate’ and conveniently corrupt
Arab leader – has ever stood for.
So what is Abbas
up to exactly?
Since the late 1970’s, Abbas began
his quest for an elusive peace with Israel, which ultimately
lead to the signing of the Oslo accords in Sep 1993. It was
Abbas himself that signed the accords on behalf of the
PLO.
Let alone that the accords wrought disaster on
Palestinians, and failed to meet a single deadline including
the final status agreement, which was meant to actualize in May 1999; it
introduced a bizarre culture of
revolutionaries-turned-millionaires, operating within the
confines of militarily occupied Palestinian
territories.
Year after year, the corrupt PA maintained its privileges
as Israel strengthened its occupation. It was a massive
barter that seemed to suit the interests of Israel, selected
Palestinians, and of course, the US itself, which, along
with its allies funded the whole scheme.
Ten
Years of Tragedy
Late leader Yasser Arafat
was clearly not suitable for the job expected of him.
Flexible at times as he was, he still had political
boundaries that he would not cross. In 2003, Abbas, the
‘moderate’ was imposed on Arafat by both Israel and the
US as a prime minister, a post that was invented with the
sole purpose of containing Arafat’s control. Following a
brief power struggle, Abbas resigned.
Shortly afterwards, Arafat died from possible poisoning, and Abbas
returned to power, this time unchallenged.
Abbas’
mandate, starting January 15, 2004, should have ended in
early 2009. But he decided to extend it by another year, and
another, and has since then ruled over the fragmented,
occupied nation, with the help of Israel, without a shred of
legitimacy, except what he, and his supporters bestow on
him.
It has been almost exactly a decade since Abbas
ruled over Palestinians. They were years of tragedy,
political failure, economic crisis, disunity, and
unprecedented corruption.
Yes, the 80-year-old leader
has survived, partly because Israel found him the most
flexible of all Palestinians (he wouldn’t end security
coordination with Israel even after he himself described as
the genocidal war on Gaza); the
Americans too wanted him to remain in his post, for there is
yet to be an alternative leader, who places US-Israeli
priority ahead of his own people.
But he also survived
because he used billions of dollars funneled by
international donors to construct a welfare system, creating
a class of Palestinian Nouveau riche, whose wealth was a
result of the occupation, not despite it. While the new rich
basked in their underserved wealth, the fate of millions of
Palestinians were tied to pay checks, which were not the
outcome of a productive economy but international
handouts.
While Israel was spared the burden of
looking after the welfare of the occupied Palestinians as dictated by the Geneva and other
conventions, it was left with abundance of funds to
expand its illegal settlements.
Somehow it all worked
out for all parties involved, save the Palestinian
people.
The Search for
‘Victory’
In a sense, Abbas was never
really a leader of his people as he didn’t place
Palestinian national priority as the prime motivator of his
action. At best, he was a political manger, whose management
strategy is predicated on finding political balances, and
catering to those with greater power and
influence.
Following the expiration of Kerry’s
deadline of April 29, 2014 aimed at reaching a final status
agreement, and another major Israeli war on Gaza that
ignited massive anger in the West Bank, which is itself on
the verge of an uprising, Abbas’s burden was too heavy to
bear.
To create distractions, and to deny the Gaza
resistance any claim on victory, he began to hunt for his
own ‘victory’, which he would then promote back in
Ramallah, amid major fanfare and celebration of his
supporters. With every such symbolic victory, Palestinians
were inundated with new songs of Abbas’ supposed heroism,
as his mouthpieces traveled the globe in a desperate attempt
to reassert Abbas, and the PA’s relevance.
And
after much of delay and haggle, Abbas was forced by sheer
circumstance to resort to the ICC, not to criminalize
Israel, but to win political leverage, and to send a message
to Israel, the US and others that he still
matters.
The move to join the ICC has little to do
with the war crimes in Gaza, and much with Abbas’ growing
unimportance among his allies, but also his own
people.
The problem with Abbas, however, is bigger
than Abbas himself. The ailment lies in the very political
culture and class that sustained and benefited from
political corruption for over 20 years.
Even when
‘President Abbas’ is shoved aside, due to old age or
whatever else, the malaise will persist; that is until the
Palestinians challenge the very culture that Abbas has
painstakingly constructed with US money, and an Israeli
nod.
ends