PINotes  Global news. Global view.


News & Analysis > All

News & analysis from Proletarian Internationalist Notes—news, reviews and analysis from a global perspective

Sending the right signal: Abbas, BDS, and diplomacy

September 25, 2016

The goal of this article is to provide some context for understanding what Palestinians are doing in diplomacy. Mahmoud Abbas is unpopular with many, but there is a need for critical engagement with diplomacy from an anti-American perspective. Those who disdain everyone in Palestine and the Middle East, because they think Westerners are superior, and want ISIS to grow to benefit U.S. influence will ignore this article.

If the State of Palestine, conventionally not considered as now including the Palestinian land inside the Green Line called “Israel,” were to double its GDP per capita,(1) its per-capita GDP would still be less than many Third World countries’ as discussed previously.(2) The State of Palestine’s current per-capita GDP is only about 50% more than the World Bank’s average for sub-Saharan Africa, a third of the average for Latin America and the Caribbean, close to Hondura’s, India’s, and Pakistan’s, and a fraction of China, Iraq and Libya’s.(3) Israel’s own per-capita GDP is a few times that of Azania. Israel is an imperialist formation. Azania is an oppressed country that had an open general election in 1994 after the Soviet Union had declined and dissolved and much of the basis for Western support of Apartheid had disappeared.

So, if the State of Palestine had even three times its current GDP per capita, it could still be a Third World country. The neocolonialism of the situation would be preferable to the brazen outrageous colonialism existing currently, but the Palestinians would still have people in their government who mislead or misrepresent them. It is not that Arabs or Third World people are especially “corrupt.” It’s just that Third World governments lie in between the exploiters in the First World and the exploited in the Third World.

If the nation of Palestine were considered proletarian as a whole, now-unelected international figure Mahmoud Abbas called “President” would be like Palestine’s top labor-bureaucrat leader. Labor bureaucrats help control the rebellion of the exploited and sell out the workers while claiming to represent them in negotiations and also apart from negotiations. It cannot be denied Abbas has such a function. Officially, the Palestinian Authority doesn’t encourage working in settlements in the West Bank, but in effect Abbas has a role in the terms on which Palestinians work in the settlements and elsewhere make products and ingredients/inputs exported to “Israel” and other parts of the world, that are cheaper than they would be without international wage differences. Like leaders of Third World countries that aren’t occupied, Abbas is an agent of international exploitation. At the same time, Abbas is subject to some pressure by rank-and-file Palestinians who for various reasons aren’t in positions of leadership or in positions of representing Palestinians internationally.

Popular Marwan Barghouti, whom some so-called pro-Palestinian activists too often don’t mention while shitting on prominent Palestinian leadership and the two-state solution in general, is waiting in an Israeli prison and probably studying or teaching right now. Hamas officials – who have favorability rivaling Marwan Barghouti’s – are mostly stuck behind a blockade, and those who aren’t receive little support from Western activists despite the activists’ criticism of Abbas. If a Hamas leader or even Marwan Barghouti – or any of two other Barghoutis this writer can think of – were to win a future election, though, it is likely ey would face criticism in part similar to what Abbas faces as a labor-bureaucratic figure. It is no insult to anyone’s character to say that. It’s just the structure and dynamics of the situation: being in government while capitalism – not just occupation – still exists, while anti-neocolonial and socialist revolutions are stuck in limbo globally due to certain global economic and political factors that developed as the united $tates’ imperialist rivals were ruined or fell in economic and political position. The labor bureaucracy is a political issue but also a structural one.

In the First World, union leaders stopped selling out their union workers in that sense – not because the union leaders became revolutionary, but because the First World working classes ceased to be proletarian. They became groups of petty-bourgeois exploiters. First World workers still have their own representatives and have disagreements with them, but together they are often more reactionary than even some imperialists. It was that way long before Donald Trump, who just competes with Hillary Clinton to represent the exploiter-workers of the United $nakes. As capital becomes even more mobile, national struggle will still persist with First World working classes continuing to exert pressure on their own governments in their interactions with foreign states and peoples, for example. Proletarian revolution won’t come to the First World working classes primarily through their own effort. The basis for fascist so-called revolution will continue to exist, though. Capital mobility won’t end nationalism. Nor will increasing or decreasing labor mobility.

There continues to be a labor bureaucracy problem in the Third World, and indeed Abbas opposes armed uprisings and has some blood on eir hands from policing militancy among the Palestinians. Abbas takes more responsibility for that than AmeriKKKans do – who are actually the main obstacle to Palestinian liberation, but constantly act like they are victims of Israel and other countries rather than perpetrators in control, even when they force Abbas to get “security” equipment from the united $tates for example and subject the PA to their influence. Abbas controls Palestinians’ resistance and is relatively open about that. Palestinians’ militancy has a nationalist character for the most part, though, aimed at ending blatant colonialism. It is not so much socialist revolution or general anti-imperialist revolution (including anti-neocolonial revolution against all imperialist countries with relations with an oppressed country) – neither of which will be on the horizon, as a movement surging to victory, until the era of extreme U.$. dominance in the world ends.

If Abbas is a puppet, spy or traitor as many said Arafat was, it is not so much for opposing socialism as for interfering with Palestinians’ national liberation from colonialism (as opposed to liberation from capitalism). It is helpful to think of Abbas as a labor bureaucrat, though, to keep in mind that Abbas simultaneously mediates the proletarian struggle in a national form and does so internationally, is influenced by pressure from Palestinians, and also misleads Palestinians to some extent as labor bureaucrats have always done with proletarians while claiming to lead and speak for them. Also, Abbas may be tempted by a promise of future material privilege for Palestine in the amerikan-dominated world or by the economic allure of more Palestinians’ having Israeli citizenship and becoming “Israeli Arabs” some of whom are bought-off. Considering Abbas as a labor bureaucrat also raises the issue of how to understand such leaders who are paradoxically both inevitable and seemingly out of place in an environment where socialist revolution is generally stalled due to a situation of u.$. hegemony and globally polarized class structure.

None of this is to say that being in a puppet government following an amerikan invasion is acceptable because of how situations produce certain kinds of leaders. But it is truly strange when some seem to suggest Abbas is a constant puppet while criticizing others for not have greater ties with the government in Iraq in 2010 or 2011, when the average u.$. troop level there was still in the tens of thousands. There should not be double standards. At the same time, Palestinians’ imperfect diplomacy in struggle with u.$. interests shouldn’t be viewed unfavorably relative to openly collaborating with the united $tates militarily. Nouri al-Maliki was still in power in 2011. Kept on a sometimes-loose leash, al-Maliki had a contradictory relationship with the united $tates as Abbas does and ended up saying the united $tates was deliberately instigating conflict in the Middle East and using ISIS a pretext to continue involvement there, but al-Maliki was Prime Minister during the 2007 u.$. troop surge for example. It is unimaginable that some of the people excessively or inconsistently critical of Mahmoud Abbas would really like it if the amerikans and the I$raelis bombed Palestine more, just to help their favorite underdog there.

That is not to mention those who call for Abbas’ overthrow for various reasons including “socialist” ones, but who make endless excuses for defending amerikan imperialists or Democrats and extol sell-out “black” (mis)leaders opposed to New Afrikan (Black) nationalism. It is much easier to criticize non-amerikans in power struggling to be independent when one doesn’t support nationalism, or seek state power, in the first place except through the Democratic Party or through u.$. imperialist power.

In terms of Abbas’ negative influence on nationalism, that is not something some Abbas critics really care about, because they are against nationalism to begin with, either nationalism in general or Palestinian nationalism. There is a question about whether some of those even still acknowledge, or ever accepted, Palestine’s nationhood. It is easy to oppose nationalism when one’s own nation already has recognition, self-determination, a state, independence, and full sovereignty, or when one has already reaped the material benefits of u.$. nationalism and citizenship in the united $nakes. Despite Israel’s violations of the Oslo Accords and not meeting its obligations, with the Oslo Accords came a change in Israeli public opinion regarding the equal nature of Israel and Palestine as peoples. Some seem to want to roll back progress in this respect. They want to go backward for the sake of pursuing an economically improbable and ahistorical one-state fantasy inclusive of Israeli settlers inside and outside the Green Line – or because of some delusory transnational, even global socialist revolution soon to take place in countries somehow including the united $tates or before global u.$. dominance ends.

UN General Debate statement

In Abbas’ capacity as a bureaucrat, Abbas last week suggested in New York that “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” accepted a State of Palestine limited by “the 4 June 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital.”(4) It is a fraction of the land belonging to Palestinians. Obviously it is a lot less than many Palestinians want and have a right to. Abbas knows it. Addressing the General Assembly and the whole world, ey used the words “a historic and immense sacrifice.” “What more can be asked of us?” One hopes there would already be greater, stronger and more tangible international support – more than in previous anti-colonial struggles without such extensive settlement by colonizers – for returning all of the Palestinians’ land to their control. That isn’t the reality right now and yet the status quo – upheld by the settler entity called the “United States” – is unacceptable. Like other figures in occupied states where a semblance of autonomy is useful or exclusive control by a single foreign country is not possible, Abbas faces pressure from eir own people and also struggles within parameters partly dictated by foreigners.

Another potential issue involves raising the idea of the one-state solution in a one-sentence paragraph: “Does Israel want one State?” It was in the midst of suggesting settlement expansion was making a two-state outcome impossible. Abbas didn’t say “one State” at last year’s session, but last year said, “We recall here the words of the late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1976, when he stated that Israel will become an apartheid State if it continues its occupation of the Palestinian Territory and described the Israeli settlements on Palestinian land as “cancer”.” Abbas talked about Israel needing to “assume all of its responsibilities as an occupying Power.” Conspicuously, ey did not say “apartheid” at this year’s meeting – probably a reflection of a decision to steer away from the “Greater Israel” so-called solution.

The Palestinian figure opposed the united $tates without saying its name. “We hope no one will cast a veto.” That was after Abbas said the Palestinians were “undertaking extensive consultations with the Arab countries and other friendly countries” to try to get the Security Council to pass a resolution on settlements and settler terror. After describing the oppression of Palestinians in terms of “racial discrimination” as ey has done in the past (without using the word “discrimination” at last year’s session, however), Abbas later contributed to delusional thinking about u.$. leadership and the amerikkkan people by suggesting amerikans were defeated, in opposition to their own interests, by I$rael. “All of these Israeli policies, actions and measures are the reasons for the failure of all international efforts, particularly that of the [amerikan-dominated] international Quartet for the past 13 years, just as Israel has sabotaged the efforts of successive American administrations over the decades.” Last year, Abbas suggested I$rael was “working extremely hard to destroy the two-State solution,” but that the Obama regime was supporting it. With Clinton probably in office less than half a year from now, will there be the same deceptive tune next year, and the year after that, about the amerikans not opposing the two-state solution at all? Two years ago, Abbas was praising John Kerry and talking about how “we” had exercised self-restraint “to give the American efforts the best possible chance for success.” Abbas and Kerry had a meeting in New York last week. Photos and delusional suggestions ensued in the media.

At the General Debate, the Palestinian representative made a less-noticed criticism of the united $tates. It was oblique. Abbas said, “I extend my appreciation in this regard to the Security Council members who convened an Arria meeting of the Council to explore the possibilities of international protection for our people.” There is a subtlety to not having a comma between “members” and “who” which is about the united $tates’ opposing the Arria-formula meeting.(5)

Abbas asked for an apology, among other things, from Britain for the Balfour Declaration – but not for any apology from the united $tates. If there is something unsatisfactory about Abbas’ talking about Britain’s responsibility through a century-old declaration, it is because the united $tates is now in the role Britain was in. Saying the West has culpability for the so-called “Israeli-Palestinian conflict” is a start, though, and may be a way of broaching the subject of the united $tates’ equivalent or now-greater responsibility for harming the Palestinians.

If Abbas was a sell-out at the General Assembly meeting, it was for using a global forum to spread and worsen illusions about the united $tates among amerikans, non-amerikans and Palestinians listening. On the other hand, what Abbas said about the united $tates and Israel isn’t something Iran – which has had strong positions against Israel and the united $tates – hasn’t said or entertained recently.(6) Press TV interviewed Palestine Pulse (Al-Monitor) columnist Daoud Kuttab, who said, according to a rough transcript, both that the united $tates “does not allow any strong resolutions against Israel that have teeth” and also that Israel is “going against the thoughts and advice of its best allies” including the united $tates. For that matter, everyone already knows who vetoes the resolutions about Israel, and may have some sense of the amerikans’ role in obstructing and undermining the two-state solution though they may acknowledge that role less than they ought to. Certainly, Mahmoud Abbas and Riyad Mansour are intimately familiar with what the united $tates does in the UN. So, one can understand there may be a “diplomatic” reason for how Abbas spoke about the united $tates, if even Iran’s Press TV is globally disseminating such a statement from a “Palestinian journalist” who is skeptical about the UN.

Abbas expressed frustration and great disappointment with the UN, suggesting the Palestinian nation’s cause was not “genuinely heard” by the UN. Abbas said that in the first minute of eir address. It is hard to understand how some people didn’t notice that. The Palestinian later criticized the Security Council as a whole: “ . . . the Security Council is not upholding its responsibilities to hold Israel accountable for its seizure of the territory allotted to the Palestinian State according to the partition resolution.” Ey suggested “you” need to “read this resolution once again.”

Interestingly, the same Daoud Kuttab interviewed by Press TV wrote an article – apparently published right before the interview – dismissing the significance of the Britain reference, including the request for Britain to make amends, and criticizing Abbas as lacking clarity and for not taking the opportunity to support a general boycott of Israel in front of the whole world.(7) “What is voted on or discussed in the UN General Assembly rarely has any direct influence on Palestinians in Nablus or Hebron,” Kuttab wrote in opposition to the hope Abbas expressed that the UN could still do something for the Palestinians.

Kuttab likes to count words and notes the “38 times” Abbas mentioned “Israel” supposedly, the “20 times” Abbas said “peace,” and the “15 times” ey used the word “occupation.” Whether the twenty times includes “peace” in “peace be upon you” is a mystery, as is how the esteemed journalist came up with some of the other numbers that seem inexact. Well, Kuttab doesn’t mention “Americans,” “America” or the united $tates once except to mention “US President Barack” Obama’s verbal opposition to occupation and settlements at the Assembly meeting, and to question “expectations that Western countries will pressure Israel to attend an international conference.” Kuttab juxtaposes “dependency on diplomacy” with alleged failure to condemn “violent acts of resistance” – seemingly almost suggesting that clearly supporting an armed intifada would be better than an unclear vision with “over-dependency on diplomacy,” which Kuttab says has to do with “the leadership’s political survival” and avoiding imprisonment and deportation. The columnist and media activist then suggests focus on diplomacy is ultimately unnecessary because Abbas supposedly could do more to support “nonviolent acts of resistance,” which Kuttab supports. “Both Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal have publicly called for mass popular resistance, but neither has done anything to support nonviolent protest.” “Palestinian leadership has even thwarted the worldwide boycott efforts by Palestinians and their supporters by failing to get fully behind them.” Kuttab thinks there should be a “boycott of the State of Israel” and calls for it, in the article, without mentioning the united $tates specifically except in a favorable way. (In the article on is a link to a criticism of an statement Abbas made three years ago. Abbas didn’t support “the boycott of Israel” and supported preserving ability to trade with Israel within a context of making West Bank settlement products relatively unprofitable.)

Evidently, that is the kind of “analysis” Press TV thought was necessary to promote in its own media. Because obviously Iran has always supported approaches like BDS and never supported militant resistance to Israel and amerika.

Sarcasm aside, actually it is the case Iran has supported an anti-amerikan boycott in the past.(8) Following partial sanctions relief, Iran in particular has reasons to want to increase economic ties with the united $tates now and make a return of the old sanctions regime more complicated to pursue. It is harder to understand others’ reasons for not supporting an anti-amerikan boycott or at least accelerated divestiture.

Diplomatic signals

Clearly opposing the united $tates while supporting BDS is about sending the right diplomatic signals. Whether the aforementioned Palestinian writer knows it or not, if Abbas had fully supported a boycott of simply “Israel” in the Assembly without saying more against the united $tates it would have been an instance of diplomacy – one that could have been counterproductive.

It seems inconsistent in fact to regard the UN – partly an institution and medium of diplomacy – as useless and oppose further investment of hope in the UN for a diplomatic purpose, and then criticize Abbas for not using the Assembly meeting to advance BDS. It is yet more odd because much support for BDS is supposedly out of frustration with Abbas and intergovernmental approaches, and the BDS movement prides itself in being based in civil society. Abbas is a frequently unfavorably-viewed state actor whose public association with the BDS movement could actually be unhelpful to the movement overall. It’s not just that some prominent BDS movement leaders were publicly attacking the legitimacy of Abbas’ claim to represent Palestinians years ago, contributing to unwillingness to work with Abbas among Europeans and Latin Americans for example. If the BDS movement is working faster than expected and already has the support of various Palestinian parties large and small as is sometimes said, why associate Abbas the individual with it at the General Debate when the usefulness of Palestinians’ very attendance in New York is being debated? A majority wants Abbas to resign in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Abbas is still viewed less positively in the West Bank than Marwan Barghouti and even Ismail Haniyeh in terms of presidential electability, according to Policy and Survey Research’s #60 public opinion poll.(9) Abbas has a deep image problem, and ey knows it.

At the same time, even if UN organs and agencies have proved to be useless in terms of making and implementing decisions, it may be useful to raise an issue that only the united $tates and a few countries will side against the Palestinians on, further revealing the amerikans to be obstructionists. Even if the Palestinians wouldn’t get the majority to agree with it on a question, it may just be the united $tates that opposes even discussing it. The accumulation of such information could itself be useful. So, nothing may come from Arria-formula meetings and other meetings in terms of UN protection for Palestinians, but the amerikans’ obstruction on that specific issue is now a matter of fact for the world to consider along with other evidence. Suggesting there be a show of global majority support – partial or unqualified – for Israel BDS movement at the state level right now would be less useful in that respect. It would be risky right now in terms of hoping for a majority perhaps prematurely and would risk undermining the BDS movement. Abbas’ approach was to emphasize things there was already majority agreement about at the state level and exhort countries to conform and follow through. It is clear that, where Palestine is concerned, other nations have supported things verbally but been remiss in enforcement.

By some BDS movement supporters’ own admission, the main effect of the BDS movement at the moment is less economic and more in public opinion. Israelis are worried about the future consequences of the message that supporting BDS sends. Sanctions against Iran and northern Korea obviously have big effects, but according to one viewpoint the function of many individual economic sanctions is to send a message to various audiences.(10) Therefore, the content of that message is more important than how much the BDS movement, for example, has been revealed to be working right now from an economic standpoint.

Many countries’ collective attitude toward Israel is already very unfavorable, with high ratings for negative influence in the world and low ratings for positive influence.(11) BBC’s “global average” for views of Israel’s influence as being mainly negative is 49%, more than twice its global average for mainly positive. In contrast, BBC’s global average for mainly-negative view of the united $tates’ influence is 38%, slightly less than the 42% viewing amerika’s influence as mainly positive. Israel is able to survive with low favorability. The united $tates’ favorability must decrease as well. It is not that, or just that, the united $tates speaks and acts on behalf of Israel in some settings, as is often said actually with the effect of obscuring the extent of the amerikans’ own interest and intention in matters. The united $tates also foments contradictions within and between “Israel,” the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank, and in the Middle East, to secure and increase its influence vis-à-vis other countries while favoring some countries in the region that become dependent on the united $tates militarily.

Even if BDS has a considerable impact on economic relations between Israel and a country, increased ties with another country may make up for it. With a stronger anti-amerikan message, BDS may – instead of hurting Israel economically overall – actually result in a shift of ties away from the united $tates and other Western countries, and toward Arab countries, China, Russia, and other countries some of which may be disinclined to support BDS publicly but may have a less favorable view of the united $tates. That would be a welcome development.

Ironically, contrary to what the Palestine Pulse columnist may have suggested, Abbas was more clear than some Israel boycott supporters are. Specifically, Abbas called for action to “resolve all of the final status issues” including Palestinians’ right of return (which Abbas later referred to again), called for cessation of settlement, supported Palestinian “national institutions,” supported “independence of Palestinian decision-making,” supported using “political and diplomatic means and international law,” supported mobilizing “Arab and international efforts,” supported the two-state solution, supported “an international conference for peace, which has been proposed by France and which has received the support of the majority of the world’s countries” – a conference that would include Egypt and Saudi Arabia – supported the Arab Peace Initiative, said the State of Palestine already existed and called for more countries to recognize it, said the Nakba was ongoing and that Israel should acknowledge responsibility for continuing to inflict it on Palestine, opposed “establishment of relations with the Arab countries first without ending [Israel’s] occupation of Palestine,” and supported the “formation of a national unity government.” Abbas said, “The State of Palestine, an Observer State in the United Nations, is a State under occupation.” After mentioning “extensive consultations with the Arab countries,” Abbas suggested a need to accommodate Saudi Arabia in diplomacy by going so far as to call Saudi Arabia “brotherly” and Yemen “brotherly” in the context of Saudi Arabia’s troubling collaboration with the united $tates in Yemen.

In contrast, some activists do use the word “liberation,” but omit “national” even within the context of supporting the one-state solution of which there are “binational” versions. It is as if this were the 1970s or an earlier decade and denying Palestinian nationhood weren’t something just found in the ideological territory of extreme right-wing Israelis.

The BDS Movement officially is open to various solutions including the one-state and two-state solutions, and that is certainly appropriate for the kind of movement it is. Nobody needs to agree with a larger vision, a certain path, or any position on the nature of oppression in Palestine, to support a boycott, divestment, or sanction. On the other hand, some individuals associate the movement with a certain – or vague – path they don’t associate with any major force apart from the movement – and thereby sow seeds of skepticism regarding both diplomacy and militancy. Others’ ambiguity or amalgamation of rhetoric from different sources to please everyone could result in some supporting a two-people one-state solution while opposing “occupation” and “settler-colonialism” verbally, a solution that some view settlements and outposts as helping to realize. It is just a few steps from that to just talking about “race” and imitating the logic of international finance capital – while claiming to oppose it in pseudo-Marxist garb – by opposing nationalism of oppressed nations and working against what Palestinian diplomats are doing when what they are doing at the moment happens to be mostly correct. Besides blatant and vague statements conciliating with settlements inside and outside the Green Line in the long term, many are unclear about whether they support recognition of Palestine as a State by more countries and full recognition and full membership of the State of Palestine in the UN. While praising Swedes – who attacked Saudi Arabia in a pseudo-feminist and chauvinist way – for both recognizing the State of Palestine and BDS involvement, some reinforce illusions about the amerikans and send mixed or opposing signals about Palestinian statehood.

All nations in the world have a pro-amerikan or vacillating tendency, and an anti-amerikan tendency that can be cultivated. Saudi Arabia is a country that doesn’t have diplomatic ties with Israel officially and can play a role in the emergence of a relative peace in the region as its interests diverge from those of the united $tates. The Islamic kingdom supposedly has influence in both the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. That is something that supporters of any solution in Palestine should think about when they appear to condemn Saudi Arabia more than they condemn amerika. The basic fact of significant Saudi influence in Palestine isn’t something that will change in the short term, and it’s not something that necessarily should change if Saudi Arabia can gravitate toward non-amerikan countries out of economic and political necessity. It has an interest in doing so and also in diplomacy independent of the amerikans. As Iran has said in various ways, if countries aren’t able or allowed to carry out effective diplomacy they will resort to military operations, which the united $tates can take advantage of or which may require accommodation with the united $tates.(12) Of course, it doesn’t look good when any Arab official or figure goes to “Israel” while Palestine is still occupied, but if people don’t want that to happen there needs to be more support, not more isolation.

Hopefully, ties between Saudi Arabia and the united $tates can decrease while Iranian-Saudi ties and regional peace prospects improve – without so much pandering to amerikans, and anti-Arab sentiment and anti-Muslim feeling in various countries.(13) Right now, pan-Arabism can be more effective in moving countries away from the united $tates when it is combined with pan-Islamism. ◊

• “Three Worlds Theory,” 2008 September 22.
• “Decay in anti-Americanism is to blame for bad Iranian-Saudi relations and disorientation in anti-Israel struggle,” 2016 September.

1. “The staggering economic cost of occupation: The Palestinian economy would be at least twice as large without Israeli occupation, UNCTAD report says,” 2016 September 6.
2. “Palestine: economic ignorance underpinning preference for the one-state solution,” 2016 July.
3. “GDP per capita, PPP (current international $).”
4. “Statement by H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas,” 2016 September 22.
“Statement by H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas,” 2015 September 30.
“2017 should mark end of Israeli occupation: Mahmoud Abbas,” 2016 September 22.
“Statement by H.E. Mr. Mahmoud Abbas,” 2014 September 26.
“FULL TRANSCRIPT: Benjamin Netanyahu Speech at United Nations 2016 - WATCH VIDEO Address of Sept. 22 at 71st General Assembly,” 2016 September 22.
“FULL TRANSCRIPT of Barack Obama’s United Nations 2016 Speech – Watch Video of General Assembly Address - Sept. 20,” 2016 September 20.
“Kerry, Abbas meet, agree to push for two-state solution,” 2016 September 20.
5. ““I am not saying that protection will be provided through a resolution and the deployment of international troops to separate between the Palestinian under occupation and the occupation authorities. This would be our hope but we know that this is not in our hands and there are sides that have the ability to obstruct this in the Security Council. Despite this, we cannot accept that we do nothing.”” ““If you throw a stone at the wall, that sends you to jail as a child for 10 years. If you throw it at a moving car of the army or the terrorist settlers, they send you to jail for 20 years. And yet, their representative in the Security Council is trying to show that all the Palestinian people who have legitimate rights to resist occupation in legitimate ways, he painted them as terrorists.”” “Mansour said all Council members welcomed the convening of the meeting with one exception, the United States. He said his government wished the Security Council would adopt a new resolution and send troops to protect Palestinian civilians but he was being “realistic and reasonable.” He said the discussion will at least send a signal the Israelis that “their crimes cannot be hidden” and also “isolates the obstructers that do not want to put pressure on Israel to stop these crimes or allow the Security Council and the international community to shoulder its responsibilities to provide protection for civilians.”“ “Mansour said that the problem in the Security Council was a will to act. However, asked about the viability of a two-state solution, He said there was global consensus that settlements are illegal and calling for a one state solution would legitimize them. He said, “There is also consensus that this is an occupation and it has to end instead of venturing into a discussion of civil rights and equality for all citizens of the State of Israel. And we see concrete example of that, that the Palestinians who are citizens of the State of Israel almost for the last 70 years; they are not equal with others inside Israel who are, let’s say, Jewish. Therefore if that is the model we are looking for, I don’t think that this is an attractive model for the Palestinians.”“
6. “UN handicapped in dealing with Israeli crimes: Analyst,” 2016 September 23.
7. “Abbas disappoints, again, with UN speech,” 2016 September 22.
8. “Iran labels 227 US-made goods for boycott,” 2015 December 14.
“Boeing receives US permission to sell planes to Iran,” 2016 September 22.
9. “Palestinian Public Opinion Poll No (60),” 2016 June 21.
10. “Diplomatic signalling.”
12. “West unwilling to de-escalate Iran-Saudi row: Larijani,” 2016 June 28.
“New combat needed against Saudi Arabia in legal fronts,” 2016 September 11.
13. Saudi statement at the General Debate of the 71st Session, 2016 September 21.
“Rouhani: Iran opposes any attempt to promote religious gaps,” 2016 September 22.
“Ending the Iran-Saudi cold war,” 2016 September 20. (
“US-Saudi ties won’t improve under new president: Report,” 2016 April 23.
“Berri urges resumption of Iran-Saudi ties,” 2016 March 22. (
“Amid strains, Qatar urges Iran, Gulf Arabs to be good neighbors,” 2016 September 13.
“Jordan wants to boost diplomatic ties with Iran,” 2016 June 21.
“Kuwait eying growing ties with Iran,” 2016 September 22.
“Kuwaiti premier calls for ‘constructive dialogue’ with Iran,” 2016 September 22.
“Iran, Oman launch shipping line,” 2016 September 25.
“Omani Minister: Iran, Oman determined to boost politico-economic ties,” 2016 September 25.
“Iran, Egypt resume trade ties: report,” 2016 January 26.
“Iran, Egypt capable of reducing regional tensions: official,” 2016 August 16. “Thanks to diplomatic efforts by the two sides, relations between Iran and Egypt tend to be strong and the two nations could reduce regional tensions by furthering cooperation, Amir-Abdollahian told the visiting Head of Egypt Interests Section Office in Tehran Khaled Emara.”
“Arab states conspiring with Israel, US against Palestine: analyst,” 2016 September 8. “[Ramini:] Mr. Abbas has been under immense pressure from the new quartet in the Middle East which is Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan. These four Arab countries are very important as far as Fatah and Mr. Abbas himself are concerned. They are the people who financed him and who keep him in power. Mr. Abbas knows that his days are numbered. If the elections happen as scheduled, Fatah will lose hands down and Hamas will win. The Arab countries don’t want Hamas to win again.” “Press TV: As you said Fatah, especially Mahmoud Abbas, is essentially financed by outside powers, what is that say then about Palestinian leadership in general, regardless of who is going to come into power at the end of the day in the presidential election even there is that weakness almost in the PA, isn’t there? It is always almost dependent on everybody outside?” “Ramini: They are all bankrupts, they are all discredited. The sooner Fatah and Hamas vacate the scene, the better for the Palestinian people; because Fatah is compromised. Mr. Abbas himself said in so many occasions that no to resistance and yes to normalization and yes to security coordination with Israel and the Arab world is conspiring with America and with Israel to liquidate the Palestinian cause and the Palestinians always, as I said at the beginning, pay the price of being marginalized. Nobody asked them where do you stand in this and the world is looking at us now again.”
“Iran parliamentary official: Abbas-Rajavi meeting ‘unfortunate’ for Palestinians,” 2016 August 2.
“Iran, Saudi Arabia must jointly tackle ME woes: Zarif,” 2015 January 25.
“UAE ends military attacks in Yemen,” 2016 June 16.
“President: Iran-Pakistan economic links should be further consolidated,” 2016 September 22.
“Russia, Pakistan to hold first joint military exercise,” 2016 September 23.

home | latest | campaigns | movie reviews | newsletter

Proletarian Internationalist Notes