Palestinian response to Netanyahu speech - panic or delusion?

The Palestinian reaction to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's address Sunday can been seen as an indication of panic or alternately as proof that they are drunk with power.

One by one the Palestinian Authority officials criticized Netanyahu's speech over the air waves following his much anticipated policy speech at Bar-Ilan University on Sunday.

(Click here for the full text of Netanyahu's foreign policy speech.)

First was senior Palestinian Authority negotiator Saeb Erekat, who, several minutes after Netanyahu's speech, said in an interview to Al-Jazeera that the Arab peace initiative should be frozen. A few minutes later secretary of the Palestine Liberation Organization Executive Committee Yasser Abed Rabbo called Netanyahu a "conman and a liar." The reaction was so immediate that it is difficult to determine whether it was preplanned as an ambush for Netanyahu or an impulsive and incomprehensible reaction on the part of the PA officials.

Netanyahu's speech did not surprise anyone in the Palestinian Authority. The PA officials have already heard the statements before - a demilitarized Palestinian state, objection to the right of return of Palestinian refugees, and even the slogan "a united Jerusalem," which has been used by all Israeli premiers. But Netanyahu does differ from his predecessors in one respect, which is also a possible source of Palestinian ire.

From the PA's perspective, Netanyahu's demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state is almost humiliating, and it is highly unlikely to be realized. For the Palestinians, the repetition of this demand is an excuse on Netanyahu's part to avoid a peace agreement.

In addition, it seems that Abed Rabbo and his associates chose an insulting and petty reaction to the speech because they sensed that they could. It was only a few days ago that Erekat said that for the first time in history the Palestinians were in a position of power in negotiations with Israel. The Palestinians sensed that Netanyahu, who is not overly popular in Washington and with international community, was easy prey and therefore subject to ridicule, regardless of the content of his speech. Dubbing the Israeli Prime Minister a "conman" mere moments after he agreed to a two-state solution was not an appropriate reaction.

The second possibility is less likely. The Israeli recognition of the principle of a Palestinian state pressured the Palestinians into reacting with needlessly aggressive statements.

Ultimately, however, Abed Rabbo, Erekat and even Abbas will have to contend with Mahmoud Zahar and Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, not Netanyahu and Lieberman, and this is likely the source of their great distress.