The Israeli-Palestinian conflict divides Israeli society into two camps. One group defines itself as the “national camp,” while the second calls itself the “peace camp.” The names are designed not only to testify to the characteristics, worldviews and objectives of the respective sides, but also to challenge the other camp. The national camp criticizes those it believes to be unpatriotic and not nationalistic, those willing to forgo parts of the homeland for a phony agreement. The peace camp, by contrast, opposes those who prefer the territories and settlements over peace with its Palestinian neighbors.

At the margins of the charged debate between the camps, a big question has arisen in recent years over whether Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is at all a real partner for peace negotiations. Can he be trusted? Will he uphold his part of the bargain if and when an agreement is signed between the sides? Will peace also bring security to the Israelis?

The failures of the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians and terror events have shrunk the peace camp. But even those who do not view themselves as an integral part of the shrinking peace camp, but still believe in the two-state solution, felt lost and deceived this week.

By adopting fallacious terminology on the UN podium Sept. 26, Abbas inserted the last nail in the coffin of what still remained of the Oslo Accord's foundations. He also extinguished the last flicker of hope among the remaining die-hard peace movement devotees.