For those seeking hints of American partiality to one side or the other as the direct Netanyahu-Abbas talks begin in Washington, yesterday’s daily State Department briefing provided several.
State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley devoted a good portion of his time to the topic of the talks that are to begin today, and was even asked what was the shape of the table to be used by the sides.
Asked by a reporter about the impact on the talks of the fatal terrorist attack and the intention of some Jews to resume construction, Crowley continued the questioner’s tit-for-tat tone and equated between the “extremists on all sides.”
“We are gratified,” Crowley said, “that notwithstanding efforts by extremists on all sides to take actions that impede progress,” the talks will continue.
Crowley then criticized the murders, saying, “Yesterday’s violence was not an act of courage; it was an act of cowardice. What kind of courage does it take to murder a pregnant woman?” but in the next breath he said, “Hamas is a captive of the conflict.”
He summed up this answer with yet another egalitarian remark: “It’s going to be up to the leaders to demonstrate their commitment… that they’re not going to be deterred by these acts on various sides.”
In short, the message was that Netanyahu is to be praised for continuing the talks despite the murder of four citizens, while Abbas is to be equally lauded for continuing the talks even though construction was begun on three buildings.
Stray Voltage
Crowley displayed even-handedness in implying that public statements by both Netanyahu and Abbas do not necessarily reflect their positions at the negotiating table. Referring to Netanyahu’s declaration that the freeze will expire on Sep. 26, and to the threat by Abbas to walk out if this happens, Crowley said, “There are negotiations going on. There’s going to be a lot of stray voltage that one side or the other conveys. There is a negotiation going on, and what counts is what’s happening inside that room…”
However, when speaking of Hamas-run Gaza, spokesman Crowley related only to one side of the equation. Asked what role Gaza was playing in the talks, Crowley said, “We’re gratified that the recent changes in policy have been made… changes in terms of the flow of goods and material to the people of Gaza,” without adding that Hamas violence has not decreased. He did explain, though, that Hamas is not part of the peace talks because “they have refused to agree to” the Quartet principles, namely, commitment to peace and non-violence, recognition of Israel, and recognition of previous agreements.
The Differences Between Fatah and Hamas
Crowley then summed up his view of the differences between Hamas and Fatah: “I think it’ll be important for people in the region to look at the contrast between the vision of Hamas and endless conflict, and the vision of leaders such as President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad who are pursuing peace and also building up the institutions necessary for an eventual Palestinian state living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel. The two visions of the Middle East are in stark relief today. And we’re gratified that on this side of the equation, we have a committed leader like President Abbas who is willing to resist – to condemn that violence and continue his pursuit – his life’s pursuit of peace in the region.”
The Similarities Between Fatah and Hamas
This, in stark contrast with the view of Danny Dayan, the head of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in Judea and Samaria who is currently in Washington. In various interviews with media from around the world, Dayan has delivered the message that Fatah and Hamas are simply playing the “good cop, bad cop” routine, and that they differ only as to how to destroy the Jewish State – after a Palestinian state is established (Fatah), or concurrently (Hamas).