Washington ‘Deeply Disappointed’ by Palestinian President’s Meeting with Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas greet each other in Astana, Kazakhstan, Oct. 13, 2022. (Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas greet each other in Astana, Kazakhstan, Oct. 13, 2022. (Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
TT
20

Washington ‘Deeply Disappointed’ by Palestinian President’s Meeting with Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas greet each other in Astana, Kazakhstan, Oct. 13, 2022. (Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)
Russian President Vladimir Putin, right, and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas greet each other in Astana, Kazakhstan, Oct. 13, 2022. (Vyacheslav Prokofyev, Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

The US administration issued a rare public stinging rebuke of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, days after he lauded Russian President Vladimir Putin while slamming the United States.

“We were deeply disappointed to hear President Abbas’s remarks to President Putin. Russia does not stand for justice and international law, as evidenced by the vote at the UN General Assembly,” a National Security Council spokesperson said.

According to Israeli sources, the spokesperson’s remarks are only part of US President Joe Biden administration's rage over Abbas' meeting with Putin and saying he has no trust in the US.

They affirmed that the US anger will translate into practices against the Palestinian Authority.

The sources added that some people in Tel Aviv sought to leak the text of Abbas’s remarks, which were not mentioned in the presidency’s official statement at the time, and in which he was keen to insult Biden and his administration.

The Palestinian president on Thursday used an audience with Putin to denounce the US, telling the Russian leader that he has no faith in Washington as a Mideast peace broker.

Abbas met Putin on the sidelines of the 6th summit of the Conference on Interaction and Confidence-building Measures in Asia (CICA) in Astana, Kazakhstan.

He reiterated his support for the so-called Quartet of international mediators - Russia, the US, the UN, and the European Union - but said the US could not be left a free hand to act alone.

His comments about the US, traditionally the main broker between Israel and the Palestinians, came at a time when the US and Russia are at loggerheads over Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.

“We don't trust America and you know our position. We don't trust it, we don't rely on it, and under no circumstances can we accept that America is the sole party in resolving a problem,” Abbas told Putin.

Later in televised remarks, the Palestinian President said Washington can be within the Quartet since it is a great country but that the PA will never accept it as the only one.

In return, Abbas said he was “completely satisfied” with Russia's position towards the Palestinian people.

“Russia stands by justice and international law and that is enough for us,” he stressed.

“When you say you stand by international legitimacy, this is enough for me and that is what I want. Therefore, we are happy and satisfied with the Russian position,” Abbas added.

According to the publication in Tel Aviv on Sunday, Biden's team was outraged by these statements and considered them a blow to the US efforts to resolve the Palestinian cause and cancel the decisions of former President Donald Trump, which severed the US-Palestinian ties.

Yedioth Ahronoth Newspaper published an opinion piece by Ben-Dror Yemeni, who said that when it comes to major international conflicts throughout history, the Palestinian leadership has often, if not always, chosen to support “the wrong side.”

He cited the “wrong” positions, stating that During World War II, then-leader Mufti Hajj Amin al-Husseini chose the German Nazi Reich and spent the duration of the war in Berlin, and allegedly advised Hitler to destroy all Jews in the Arab world.

“In the 1960s, then PLO-leader Ahmad Shukeiri, conspired with Jordan, Syria, and Egypt to drive away the Jews, leading to their defeat in the 1967 Six-Day War,” the article stated, adding that in the Gulf War Yasser Arafat supported Saddam Hussein, and now Russian President Vladimir Putin, with whom Abbas has opted to side.

A source in the Palestinian presidency responded to this publication, saying that Abbas briefed Putin on the situation and underlined the Israeli escalation in Palestine.

“It was clear to us that the timing of the meeting with Putin would constitute a problem, but we did not have many options left,” the source stressed.



How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
TT
20

How Did Iraq Survive ‘Existential Threat More Dangerous than ISIS’?

Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 
Iraqi sheikhs participate in a solidarity demonstration with Iran on a road leading to the Green Zone, where the US Embassy is located in Baghdad (AP). 

Diplomatic sources in Baghdad revealed to Asharq Al-Awsat that Iraqi authorities were deeply concerned about sliding into the Israeli-Iranian war, which they considered “an existential threat to Iraq even more dangerous than that posed by ISIS when it overran a third of the country’s territory.”

The sources explained that “ISIS was a foreign body that inevitably had to be expelled by the Iraqi entity, especially given the international and regional support Baghdad enjoyed in confronting it... but the war (with Israel) threatened Iraq’s unity.”

They described this “existential threat” as follows:

-When the war broke out, Baghdad received messages from Israel, conveyed via Azerbaijan and other channels, stating that Israel would carry out “harsh and painful” strikes in response to any attacks launched against it from Iraqi territory. The messages held the Iraqi authorities responsible for any such attacks originating from their soil.

-Washington shifted from the language of prior advice to direct warnings, highlighting the grave consequences that could result from any attacks carried out by Iran-aligned factions.

-Iraqi authorities feared what they described as a “disaster scenario”: that Iraqi factions would launch attacks on Israel, prompting Israel to retaliate with a wave of assassinations similar to those it conducted against Hezbollah leaders in Lebanon or Iranian generals and scientists at the start of the war.

-The sources noted that delivering painful blows to these factions would inevitably inflame the Shiite street, potentially pushing the religious authority to take a strong stance. At that point, the crisis could take on the character of a Shiite confrontation with Israel.

-This scenario raised fears that other Iraqi components would then blame the Shiite component for dragging Iraq into a war that could have been avoided. In such circumstances, the divergence in choices between the Shiite and Sunni communities could resurface, reviving the threat to Iraq’s unity.

-Another risk was the possibility that the Kurds would declare that the Iraqi government was acting as if it only represented one component, and that the country was exhausted by wars, prompting the Kurdish region to prefer distancing itself from Baghdad to avoid being drawn into unwanted conflicts.

-Mohammed Shia Al Sudani’s government acted with a mix of firmness and prudence. It informed the factions it would not tolerate any attempt to drag the country into a conflict threatening its unity, while on the other hand keeping its channels open with regional and international powers, especially the US.

-Iraqi authorities also benefited from the position of Iranian authorities, who did not encourage the factions to engage in the war but instead urged them to remain calm. Some observers believed that Iran did not want to risk its relations with Iraq after losing Syria.

-Another significant factor was the factions’ realization that the war exceeded their capabilities, especially in light of what Hezbollah faced in Lebanon and the Israeli penetrations inside Iran itself, which demonstrated that Israel possessed precise intelligence on hostile organizations and was able to reach its targets thanks to its technological superiority and these infiltrations.

-The sources indicated that despite all the pressure and efforts, “rogue groups” tried to prepare three attacks, but the authorities succeeded in thwarting them before they were carried out.

The sources estimated that Iran suffered a deep wound because Israel moved the battle onto Iranian soil and encouraged the US to target its nuclear facilities. They did not rule out another round of fighting “if Iran does not make the necessary concessions on the nuclear issue.”