+972 Magazine's Stories of the Week

Directly In Your Inbox

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

Israel suspends talks, and Washington’s hypocrisy on Hamas

By suspending talks over Hamas’s inclusion in the Palestinian leadership, Netanyahu is proving that he was never seeking either a legitimate partner, or a legitimate peace.

The Israeli government announced that it is suspending peace talks with the Palestinians on Thursday as a response to the reconciliation deal signed a day earlier by Hamas and the Fatah-dominated PLO.

In choosing to disconnect from the already flailing peacemaking process, Israel is demonstrating that it never intended to make peace with the Palestinians, but rather with the “good Palestinians.”

Refusing to conduct peace talks with Hamas is one thing, but Netanyahu has decided to boycott Abbas because he had the gall to reconstruct his fractured government – a Palestinian societal and political wound that was one of the biggest obstacles to peace. (Read Noam Sheizaf on why the reconciliation deal is good for peace.)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry following their meeting in Jerusalem, December 5, 2013. (Photo: Kobi Gideon/GPO)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu holds a joint press conference with US Secretary of State John Kerry following their meeting in Jerusalem, December 5, 2013. (Photo: Kobi Gideon/GPO)

Israel and the United States may have given Mahmoud Abbas a mandate to conduct peace negotiations without Hamas, but his mandate from the Palestinian people — at least a democratic one — expired a long time ago.

President Abbas’ term in office ended over five years ago. The last elections for the Palestinian Legislative Council, which Hamas won, took place eight years ago. (Fifty PLC members have seen the inside of Israeli prisons since, many under administrative detention.) The PLO (its Central Committee), too, hasn’t seen a ballot box in 18 years.

A reconciliation deal with Hamas that ensures new elections would renew Abbas’ mandate to negotiate peace, or revoke it once and for all. Furthermore, Abbas, like Netanyahu, has declared that any peace deal must be put to referendum, which could not take place absent some rapprochement with Hamas.

Add to that the fact that no peace deal could be implemented without a single Palestinian governing body ruling over both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and it becomes clear why this reconciliation deal was necessary.

Read +972’s full coverage of the peace process

All of that is not to say that Hamas is a desirable partner for anything. In its seven years ruling the Gaza Strip, it has proven itself to be an illiberal, authoritarian and regressive resistance organization that has done little more than stumble while slowly learning how to govern. Add to that its history of deliberate violence against civilians and it’s not difficult to understand why Israel would want to seclude it in Gaza. But as Yitzhak Rabin famously said, “you don’t make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.”

While Abbas has proven himself a worthy partner for perpetuating a process of peacemaking, he would never have been able to reach a comprehensive resolution to the conflict without first reconciling with Hamas.

By suspending talks over Hamas’s inclusion, Netanyahu — and his inner cabinet, which voted unanimously on Thursday — is proving that he was never seeking either a legitimate partner, or a legitimate peace.

Washington’s hypocrisy: Hamas and Palestinian democracy

When Benjamin Netanyahu was elected to his second term as prime minister five years ago, the United States successfully pressured him into making his Bar-Ilan Speech, accepting in theory the two-state solution, albeit on his own terms. Washington did not demand that Netanyahu’s government endorse such a plan, nor did it demand public assurances that the self-proclaimed derailer of peace processes would honor all of Israel’s past agreements and commitments with the Palestinians.

Just over a year ago, when Netanyahu brought Naftali Bennett and his explicitly annexationist and anti-peace party into his third government, the United States did not demand that it recognize Palestine or accept its obligations toward it. When Naftali Bennett was quoted advocating for summary executions of Palestinians, explaining, “I’ve killed lots of Arabs in my life – and there’s no problem with that,” Washington did not threaten to cut off support for Israel unless the latter “unambiguously and explicitly commit to nonviolence.”

Such public assurances were not necessary because Netanyahu was and remains the address for peace negotiations and the United States was convinced, at least publicly, that he remained committed to negotiating a two-state solution, in good faith or not.

Such is not the case when it comes to the Palestinians.

It has been 21 years since the Palestinian Liberation Organization renounced violence, recognized Israel’s right to exist and dedicated itself to seeking a peaceful resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through negotiations with Israel. PLO Chairman Mahmoud Abbas has recited those principles ad nauseum since in an effort to defuse crisis after crisis.

The PLO also remains the party with which Israel conducts negotiations and which ultimately sets and carries out Palestinian foreign policy. But when the PA (and/or the PLO) includes parties that have yet to commit to those basic principles through democratic elections — which, it is important to recall were encouraged by none other than the United States — Washington cuts all ties with Ramallah. This has happened before, and it didn’t end well.

So what’s the difference between peace obstructionists in the Israeli government and those in a Palestinian government? Why is the United States “disappointed” and “concerned” by one but not the other? One reporter at the daily State Department briefing on Wednesday wasn’t quite sure either:

I mean, if the Israelis – certainly the Israeli Government has some members in it that do not recognize the Palestinians and so on, but the government itself deals with the Palestinians. Now, if you have exactly the same situation but the reverse on the Palestinian side – the Palestinian Government recognizes Israel, works with it, negotiates with it, but it has members that come from Hamas – why would this jeopardize the process?

The answer didn’t exactly shed much light on the situation:

[I]t’s hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that does not believe in its right to exist.

PA President Abbas, and certainly PLO Chairman Abbas, is not about to “hand over the keys” to Hamas, like he perennially threatens to do to Israel. He will not cede power to the Islamic movement and he is not about to abandon the centerpiece of his career — seeking Palestinian statehood through diplomatic, non-violent means. So why, you ask, would it be a problem for Israel to continue negotiating with the PLO if and when Hamas enters a PA government? Simply put, in the words of State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki, it wouldn’t.

President Abbas has been our – has been the negotiating partner with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and if that were to continue, certainly we would not only support that, we’ve been facilitating that.

Driving that point home on Thursday, Fatah Central Committee member Jibril Rajoub clarified, “the reconciliation that we achieved will be implemented according to the program of Abu Mazen [Abbas], which recognizes the state of Israel,” according to Haaretz.

If you believe in peace, the Fatah-Hamas deal is good news
Abbas just shot the Palestinian cause in the foot
Why Fatah-Hamas reconciliation might just work this time

Before you go...

A lot of work goes into creating articles like the one you just read. And while we don’t do this for the money, even our model of non-profit, independent journalism has bills to pay.

+972 Magazine is owned by our bloggers and journalists, who are driven by passion and dedication to the causes we cover. But we still need to pay for editing, photography, translation, web design and servers, legal services, and more.

As an independent journalism outlet we aren’t beholden to any outside interests. In order to safeguard that independence voice, we are proud to count you, our readers, as our most important supporters. If each of our readers becomes a supporter of our work, +972 Magazine will remain a strong, independent, and sustainable force helping drive the discourse on Israel/Palestine in the right direction.

Support independent journalism in Israel/Palestine Donate to +972 Magazine today
View article: AAA
Share article
Print article

    * Required


    1. Rab

      “So what’s the difference between peace obstructionists in the Israeli government and those in a Palestinian government?”

      Um, the targeting of civilians.
      The absolute desire to destroy Israel.
      Islamic sharia law proponents vs. people who believe in democratic rule?

      The problem with all this moral equivocation is that it really undermines your argument.

      Reply to Comment
      • Average American

        Don’t give me that sharia law crap. Israel enforces halacha law. Neither one is democracy.

        Reply to Comment
      • Danny

        Um, Israel targets far more civilians than Hamas does. In fact, Hamas targets civilians with rockets usually after Israel kills Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

        “Islamic sharia law proponents vs. people who believe in democratic rule?”

        I don’t know if you are this misinformed on purpose or not, but substitute ‘Islamic Sharia law’ with ‘Halachic law’ and you arrive at a statement that 100% represents Israel as well.

        Um… get informed, okay?

        Reply to Comment
        • Kolumn9

          Hamas (and Fatah) explicitly target civilians with the intention of killing the maximum number of Israeli civilians. These are groups whose tactics consisted of blowing up restaurants and buses full of Israeli men, women and children and then celebrating their murderers as national heroes. When these heroes failed in their tasks they are paid a monthly salary while sitting in Israeli prisons and then treated as heroes upon release. Squares and schools are named after murderers whose sole claim to fame was succeeding in killing Israeli children. Abbas himself treats these murderers as heroes. These are the ‘peace partners’. The negotiations should have been called off long ago and it isn’t because of Hamas. It is because Abbas is no different and encourages his people to continue to believe that the murder of Israeli civilians is a worthy goal.

          Israel does not target civilians. When civilians are hurt it is during military operations whose targets are terrorists.

          The moral equivocation common here is really odious.

          Reply to Comment
        • Corey

          “Israel targets far more civilians than Hamas does.” Seriously?!! What kind of altered reality world do you live in? You better stop dropping the LSD. Or are you just a liar.

          Reply to Comment
        • Leeat

          Ummm you get informed so you are saying Israel first fires and Hamas retaliates by launching a rocket??? Sweetheart you actually have it totally opposite lol the Palestinians instigate along the boarder or threatening or crossing or shooting they do something and Israel retaliates (by striking the person responsible or targets or homes where there are plotting ) and then the palis shoot rockets…I live in Israel and know exactly what’s going on. So many uninformed. Of there was no Israeli army you guys would see another world war here headed by the palis. The Israeli army prevents attacks HOURLY..do you get that???they are on scope 24 7 with our technology today.so don’t give me this crap that Israel attacks first that is not true!!!!!!! Israel targets those responsible where Hamas doesn’t give a crap…the Israeli army warns before striking and of civilians choose to stay near a target..they are just idiots

          Reply to Comment
    2. Netanyahu did not (contrary to your suggestion) want to make peacew with “good” Palestinians: he only wanted to talk endlessly with “good” Palestinians. Here, “good” means docile.

      Peace was never the point; status quo was the point. And the s.q. of the occupation is apartheid (to say nothing of illegality from the Israeli side, for the settlements are illegal and were known to be so by the Israeli government as early as 1967.

      Of course, the Israeli government can pass laws allowing things that international law and agreements forbid, just as (for instance) Hamas can legislate things that may contravene international blah-blah-blah.

      But Israel has regarded all the international law, agreements, conventions, human-rights norms, and on and on as just so much blurf — which it elects to ignore. Well, it has got away with it until now. and the future is yet to unfold.

      At least, as it appears, we may be from here on spared the duplicitous machniations known as the “peace process”.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Benjamin Netanyahu On Halting Peace Talks With Palestinians. Netanyahu MSNBC – YouTube

      AT 3:30 on the Youtube video Netanyahu says EU considers Hamas a terrorist organization. That statement may have been made somewhere by somebody, but the EU apparently favors the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation. See “EU welcomes Palestinian unity deal but peace talks the priority | GlobalPost” at

      At 5:30 on the video Andrea Mitchell, to her credit, asked Netanyahu had he made a bad decision about not releasing the 4th round of prisoners and thereby forcing Abbas “to do something”. Netanyahu completely sidesteps that question and goes back to blaming Abbas for reaching out to the 12 international organizations for Netanyah’s reneging on the prisoner release. It’s been shown that the chronology does not bear that out.

      Note closely at 5:57, before Netanyahu responds to Andrea, he very notably emits 3 staccato intake gasps. (Maybe there is something to studying body language.)

      He came out swinging in the blame game against Abbas. I am grateful for venues like this. Wish all of the isolated voices could be focused somehow. I hold out little hope the US mainstream media will rebut him.

      Reply to Comment
    4. Rehmat

      If free elections are held like in 2006, tomorrow, Fatah is going to loose big. Even Islamic Jihad might win more seats than Fatah.

      In May 2011, Dr. Chomsky told his audience at FAIR magazine’s function that United States considers a democratic ME being threat to Israel.


      Reply to Comment