I was searching for something meaningful in President Abbas meeting with the Israeli journalists some days ago. Some things were fascinating, such as seeing one of my real good friends sitting there. I felt jealous. How Abbas is closer to my Israeli friends than me.
The other always-interesting thing in such settings is that I can actually listen to Abbas. He is there. He is present. He feels comfortable speaking.
I ma actually not sarcastic in saying this.
But I feel the pain of missing such setup when he addresses us, and the convenience he presents when meeting Israelis of talking to them…
Looking at the bright side,
It was an excellent opportunity to see our president talking himself out.
My overall impression was positive. I had to be logical thinking he was addressing Israeli. But seriously, I cannot but think, why does he feel so comfortable with them, and he doesn’t feel this way when he addresses us. He appears in his rare speeches as if he was forced to come out.
And here, he was enjoying himself, the time, and the company. It is really strange.
Ok. I don’t want to keep roaming around the same point …
I have to clear me out of this. I am jealous of my Israeli friends. This is not the first time it happens of course. And I am still wondering why he doesn’t like to talk to us.
His intimate Q&As with the Israelis.
From what I watched I noticed some points that stayed in my mind, some of them, of course, caught the Israeli journalists and the Palestinians of course… the fact that he has been trying to contact Netanyahu for resuming negotiations and Netanyahu’s refusal or ignoring. It was in the Palestinian headlines, and it felt odd. Then you hear it first hand from the man, and he was insisting. Well. He wanted to tell the Israelis that he is not the one how is the obstacle to negotiations. Something that seems to irritate Netanyahu and force him to respond saying that this was not true. He almost meant that our president was a liar.
But our president doesn’t really seem to lie.
I am serious here. He actually tries his best to be straightforward. And I like this in him.
However, this gap between him and us still confuses me. Why does he feel more at ease addressing Israelis? Is it the fact that he knows the culture, the upbringing, and the discourse that is taking place on our side is different than that on the Israeli side, and hence, makes the Israeli more likely to accept what he wants to say from his point of view? It is a confusing question. I am confused thinking about it. If the Israeli public is open minded more that the Palestinian public according to the president, which does have some relevance I think. Why didn’t he try in his last ten years as a leader in changing the Palestinian attitude towards its discourse? As if it is a real two existing worlds. One that is liberal and has some diplomatic techniques and one that is Fateh tribe like the style of discourse. And then there is the formal discussion that goes in two, one official that we see in the international public speeches and one that is internal when he speaks to us. He is always distant and formal.
But not when he speaks to Israelis.
I actually like his discourse there.
He said that he is a non-violent person, and I think he addressed some good issue. Somewhere too much when asked why does the PA support families of “terrorists” of course Israelis just use the word even in the presence f our president. He responded that it is within the Palestinian culture that we support families. They would have supported even a family of an Israeli spy (Palestinian). There was a good point he could have worked on more saying that the families don’t have to pay the price of what one of them did. It could have aroused an important debate, especially in the punitive manner Israel deals with the situation. He could have asked if Israel does punish the families of the Israeli killers in such cases.
When hearing President Abbas’s non-violent discourse, I actually believe him. I think he believes in this speech, and the man is definitely not a ruthless assassin. He is sincere when he says he does consider each bloodshed as a loss in humanity.
The problem again for me is how he expresses himself here and there.
When asked about the temple mount. He also said what I strongly agree with, that he doesn’t want to see this conflict go towards a religious aspect when it is not. But he also didn’t say that when he addressed us the last time. It was something that irritated my emotions that were already disturbed. As if it wasn’t enough that everyone is making it a religious fight.
He did say this time, that he is against the religious recruitment on the affair, especially in these times when fanatic voices around the Arab Muslim region is at its peak.
Another troublesome statement was when he was asked who is the next Palestinian president. He said that when (if) he dies or resigns (steps out), the new leader would be chosen in the same manner he was selected. Fateh will accept its man, and it will recommend it to the PLO, and the people will elect. For the first instant, it sounded right. But then it echoed within a hollow trait. Are we really destined to such governance? The history of the Palestinian history knows only two leaders, and the choice is always made when that leader is deceased? And at the end they include us… the people. We choose. We want what they already determine and decide.
I think it is enough of my hallucination to the president …