Question: Why? The fact that he was old, decrepit, and suffering from latent Parkinson’s and just died, hasn’t really clinched it for them yet?

He then went on to say that Israel hasn’t kept its commitments to the United States, including giving up sovereignty over eastern Jerusalem and even parts of the Dead Sea.

Question: When was this? I can’t seem to recall when Israel made those promises to anyone. I can remember, though, when Israel actually offered them to the PLO and they refused.

Then things got more interesting. He continued: “Although peace is our choice, we reserve the right to resistance, legitimate under international law.”

Question: What resistance he’s talking about? Really, I’m curious. Peacefully picketing and civil disobedience? Or is it murdering innocent civilians? I’m just asking, because it’s unclear.

Jibril Rajoub, who used to be in charge of the PA police, then clarified and said that “armed resistance” is always an option, and that Israel must acknowledge that. So there goes nonviolent civil disobedience.

Question: What do you mean, Jibril by “acknowledge?” Does fighting back qualify? Or is acknowledgment only sitting around watching buses explode and retreating?

I’ll tell you what, Jibril. I will gladly acknowledge your resistance if you acknowledge Israel’s response to it. Then we can sit down over a cold beer, a la Obama, Gates, and Crowley at the White House and discuss mutual acknowledgment.

Meanwhile, Defense Minister Barak said it was important that the platform produced by the delegates will be representative of a wide range of views.

Question: What range of views?

President Shimon Peres, mentioning the convention, said that the Palestinians must remember that like Israel, “they must stay committed to the Road Map and the path of negotiations.”

Question: What happens if they don’t, as in the past 9 years?

The only Israelis expected to attend the conference were MKs Ahmed Tibi and Taleb A-Sanaa (UAL-Ta’al) and Muhammad Barakei (Hadash).

Question: Why are Israeli Knesset members allowed to attend a summit about armed resistance against Israel?

Is anybody listening?

Related posts

• Putting a positive spin on Hamas’s win (3)
• Is Abbas Still The Boss? (0)
• Abbas Depressed or Exhausted (2)
• Jimmy Carter and the Two State Solution (0)
• Happy Birthday Hamas (2)

Carter was given a tour of areas where major damage had been inflicted during the January Operation Cast Lead military action, in which the former President said ” the severity of damage inflicted here has brought tears to my eyes”. Carter also said that the war had brought “death, destruction, pain and suffering to the people here”. He wasn’t taken on a tour of either Sderot or other places in Israel where the same terms could also be applied, however.

In regards to Gaza’s present situation, where most of the damage has been left in tact as a “showplace” for VIP visitors such as the former President, Carter said: “tragically, the international community ignores the cries for help, while the citizens of Gaza are being treated more like animals than like human beings”.

But it was the remarks made by Haniyeh that his organization would be willing to accept a Palestinian state providing Israel open up the borders with Gaza and “accept a Palestinian State within the 1967 borders” that suddenly brought something very rational to light. When Dr. Haniyeh spoke about the “pre-1967 borders” he forgot that When Israel pulled out of the Strip in 2005, that part of Palestine was reverted back to the 1967 borders. So here is where a possible “two state solution” would work out beautifully! Why not create two Palestinian states, one in the West Bank, called East Palestine and controlled by Mahmoud Abbas’s Fatah organization, and the other, West Palestine, controlled by Hamas. Haniyeh and his friends will get their wish in that their “little state” (as Israeli P.M. Binyamin Netanyahu referred to Palestine in his address on Sunday) will be 100% “within the pre-1967 borders”.

As for “East Palestine”, a territorial agreement will be worked out with Abbas and Co. taking the large Israeli settlement blocks into account. Israel will not have to pull out of the entire section of the West Bank and Jerusalem would remain united, with special consideration being given to the people of East Palestine for visiting, living in, and even having some governmental offices in the city’s eastern sectors. The Status of the Old City would remain as it is today, with Jews remaining in the Jewish Quarter and having full access to the Western Wall Plaza. The Wakf Islamic Trust would maintain control of Karim al Sharif , otherwise known as the Temple Mount.

This new “two state solution” should be acceptable to everyone, especially West Bank Palestinians (who really don’t like the Hamas people anyway – and vice versa). And as for Gaza, maybe they can get to rebuilding all the damage incurred to “their little state” which will not only provide jobs for a lot of Palestinian workers but result in their not having to keep all those piles of rubble lying around to “impress” gullible people like Jimmy Carter.

Related posts

• Some Questions about the Fatah Convention (0)
• Putting a positive spin on Hamas’s win (3)
• Only Fools Rush In (0)
• Hopes rise for release of captive Israeli soldier (1)
• Hamas In Their Own Video (2)

Saeb Erakat, the chief negotiator for the PLO, has written a fascinating op-ed piece for the New York Times. In it he explains why he, a supporter of Mahmoud Abbas, does not view Hamas’s victory in the recent Palestinian elections as a setback for peace and democracy in the Middle East.

Of course Erakat manages to slip in a “blame Israel” (such a surprise!) for the routing of Fatah, but he does admit that Fatah needs to do some internal housecleaning in order to regain the voters’ trust. He also seems to think that Hamas’s Islamist platform does not represent the views of the majority of the people, and that Hamas will therefore find it rough going trying to implement sharia (Islamic law) in the West Bank.

Read the whole thing, below, to find out why.

What the P.L.O. Has to Offer
By SAEB EREKAT

Jericho, West Bank

MANY have argued that Hamas’s winning of a decisive majority in the Palestinian Parliament provides yet another setback for peace and democracy in the Middle East. Some have even suggested that it vindicates Israeli unilateralism. I, however, think the opposite is true: A negotiated and lasting peace may now be closer than many of us could have imagined just weeks ago.

The parliamentary elections could be seen as a referendum on the leadership of President Mahmoud Abbas, who came to office a year ago after winning nearly two-thirds of the popular vote. Mr. Abbas ran on a platform of job creation, internal security and a negotiated resolution of the conflict with Israel based on two states living side by side in peace.

Many people believe that Mr. Abbas did not deliver. Today, there are fewer jobs, not more; security for Palestinians in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Gaza Strip is worse, not better; and negotiations, like the two-state solution, are stalled.

Mr. Abbas, however, is not ultimately to blame. When he called on Israel to lift restrictions on Palestinian movement and trade within and between Palestinian areas, Israel refused — despite similar calls from the World Bank, the United Nations, the European Union and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. The restrictions translated not just into more poverty but also into less security, for Mr. Abbas could not even move police forces within Palestinian territory.

President Abbas did deliver, and largely maintained, a “tahdia” — a “period of calm” between the Palestinian factions and Israel. And he was able to do this despite scores of Palestinian deaths and several thousand military raids and arrests that Israel conducted in violation of its agreement not to undertake such activities. Israel also tightened its control over key territory, resources and markets — primarily occupied East Jerusalem — that we will need to build an economically viable state.

So, President Abbas, the leader of the Fatah party, made a set of campaign promises; the opposite came to fruition; therefore, Palestinians elected the only alternative: Hamas.

In reality, however, the vote was neither a rejection of President Abbas and his peace program nor an endorsement of the Hamas charter. According to recent polls, nearly 70 percent of Palestinians still support Mr. Abbas as president. And 84 percent of Palestinians still want a negotiated peace agreement with Israel. Even among Hamas voters, more than 60 percent of those polled support an “immediate” resumption of negotiations.

The apparent contradiction between Palestinian support for peace and Hamas’s electoral victory is most easily explained by popular anger at the perceived corruption of the never-before-challenged Fatah. Whereas Hamas will now have to accept that the majority of its own voters reject its core ideology, Fatah must now undertake a long-overdue housecleaning to eradicate corruption and regain the trust of the electorate.

While most Palestinians remain committed to peace, they have become disenchanted with a process that has brought them no closer than they were in 1993 to their dream of freedom and independence. In the 12 years since the Oslo process was initiated, Israel has become more entrenched in Palestinian land than ever before. And the international community acquiesced all the while. The electorate punished us all for allowing conditions to deteriorate to this level.

Israel’s accelerated colonization of the occupied West Bank — through which it has routed 80 percent of its wall — isn’t helping. Christian and Muslim Palestinian communities are being destroyed to the absolute detriment of any prospect of a two-state solution.

Recently, Israel’s acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, announced his plan to determine unilaterally the final borders of Israel, while keeping control of strategic parts of the occupied West Bank: East Jerusalem, the Jordan Valley and three major illegal settlement blocs — a plan that would result in the effective end of our state-building project.

Israel’s disingenuous pronouncements that it has “no partner” to negotiate peace, and that Mr. Abbas is “no longer relevant” should be seen in that unilateralist light. The Palestine Liberation Organization, which Mr. Abbas also leads, is the sole representative of Palestinians everywhere and therefore the only real negotiating partner. Its mandate remains unaffected by the parliamentary elections.

If Israel continues to exploit the Hamas victory to claim that it has “no partner” for talks and avoid negotiations — and if the international community remains indifferent — the conflict can only deteriorate.

This would be an unforgivable loss for peace. While Palestinian democracy poses no challenge to the resolution of the conflict, Israel’s “no partner” mantra and the political cowardice of the international community do.

The Hamas victory cannot be allowed to obscure the reality: the Palestinian people want a negotiated peace, and in Mr. Abbas they have a Palestinian Authority president and P.L.O. chairman who shares their view, enjoys a mandate to act and has the ability to deliver. For those committed to reaching a two-state solution, public support on both sides of the conflict likely provides the last opportunity to see our vision materialize. Now we all have a duty to respond immediately to our peoples’ demands for a negotiated peace.

Saeb Erekat is the chief negotiator of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Related posts

• Some Questions about the Fatah Convention (0)
• Jimmy Carter and the Two State Solution (0)
• Is Abbas Still The Boss? (0)
• Abbas Depressed or Exhausted (2)
• The Test (0)

Abbas also reacted to Olmert’s statement calling for the resumption of the peace negotiations with the Palestinians, after the elections and once they dismantle the militant groups. Abbas is willing to meet Olmert as soon as possible, adding that negotiations is the only way for peace and not unilateral actions and assassinations.

Abbas intentionally avoided the condition mentioned by Olmert of dismantling the militant groups, which he refuses to do. Abbas’s “depression” is probably justified judging by the political mess he is in, his Fatah movement is plagued by corruption, Palestinian areas are increasingly chaotic recently, questioning his government’s ability to control the situation, or for that matter follow through on his commitments in any peace talks.

On the other hand the militant Hamas seems to gain popularity and is posing a strong challenge to the ruling Fatah party, inevitably earning seats in the new government after the vote, which in turn will put future peace negotiations with Israel on ice for a long time to come. No wonder Abbas feels depressed under the circumstances, I would too.

Related posts

• Olmert Target of Assassination Plot (0)
• Will Bush’s Visit Save Olmert Politically? (0)
• Why is this election different from all the others? (2)
• The Outcome of Violence (4)
• The “Good Ol’ Boys ” are Back (1)