They just can't do it; it's almost like they are physically incapable of doing so. Yasser Arafat could not do it, and Mahmoud Abbas serves as a worthy heir to this tradition. Which tradition, you ask? The Palestinian tradition of, when they actually do condemn a terrorist act, adding a caveat. Why do they condemn the act? Because it is "contrary to Palestinian interests," or it is "harmful to the peace process." What these "condemnations" are actually saying is, of course, that if the particular terrorist act were not "contrary to Palestinian interests," or were not "harmful to the peace process," they would be acceptable (welcomed?).
Here's an idea: why does not the Palestinian leadership condemn terrorist acts because they are wrong, period?! Is this such a difficult concept? Well, for Mahmoud Abbas, it is too difficult. This concept is not on his radar screen. This man is a copy of Yasser Arafat, just better groomed, and with a more presentable appearance. He, like Arafat, say the right things to western media, and the media dutifully fawn over him. They declare him to be the most moderate Palestinian leader out there, a man with whom Israel can do business, and a man who truly wants to end the conflict once and for all. Yet this man of peace consistently allows messages of hatred, violence, and antisemitism to be broadcast on official PA television, radio, and print media. He says that he will never recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He declares that should Israel not extend the freeze on building in Judea and Samaria (a requirement not mentioned in any one of the peace agreements thus far signed, as opposed to the Palestinian requirement to cease any and all incitement), he will walk away from the negotiating table. This is a man with whom Israel must negotiate?
Why are the vast majority of those in the media, and on the left side of the political spectrum (and, sadly, too many on the right side), so eager to embrace Mahmoud Abbas, despite his obvious non-commitment to peace? The man cannot even simply declare, "I condemn the terrorist attack near Hebron, in which four Israelis were murdered. The deliberate murder of innocents is wrong." I believe that those who are enthused with Abbas are willfully fooling themselves. They have so convinced themselves that all people desire to live in peace with their neighbors, and are, deep down, good, that they cannot bring themselves to deal with the reality staring them in the face. They come up with a myriad of excuses as to why this or that inciting statement should not be taken at face value: It's just for internal consumption, they say. He needs to allow freedom of the press, they say. He is the most moderate Palestinian leader there will be for many years, they say. Well, I, for one, am not consoled by any of these notions. Can anyone imagine similar things being said about an Israeli leader who allowed such rhetoric to be regularly expressed in official Israeli media outlets, and who "condemned" an Israeli terrorist act on the grounds that it "contradicted Israel interests"? The man would be run out of town, and justifiably so.
But the Palestinian leadership has always gotten a pass on statements like these. Those who issue the pass may think that they are advancing the peace process. In truth, however, they are sending a clear message: We do not expect anything better from you, Palestinians. We do not hold you to the same standards of civility by which we hold nearly every other people.
And the Palestinian people, and their leaders, get this message, loud and clear.