Abbas tells PLC he won't launch crackdown on militants

Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, weakened
by his power struggle with Palestinian Authority
Chairman Yasser Arafat, told lawmakers Thursday he
would not launch a crackdown on militants and
hinted at resignation if he did not win
parliamentary support.

<snip>

Tensions between Abbas and Arafat have been at fever pitch in recent days, with both men jockeying to shore up their formal and practical powers within the Palestinian Authority.

However, a vote might be held next week, if mediation efforts fail. The U.S.-backed Abbas, who has minimal support among Palestinians, could be toppled, dealing a heavy blow to efforts to end three years of violence and move toward Palestinian statehood.

<snip>

Abbas announced in his PLC speech the appointment of Saeb Erekat as head of the negotiations and contacts with Israel and the United States. Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat and Abbas agreed on the appointment in the last few days, despite the crisis between them on security affairs.

<snip>
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/336505.html

I guess that's the final blow to the Road Map. Hamas has gained control.

why would any palestinian not fight back against Isreal?

Sharon et al "Stop fighting back so we can destroy you!"

Any resistance to US or Israeli policies or actions is by definition, terrorism.

Many terrorists were not even aware they were terrorists until bush pointed it out to them.

to fight back, one must be attacked. Israel is the victim here, they were attacked. They fight back.

And they were long before the Al-Aqsa intifada. They have a right to employ violence to resist occupation. However, they do not have the right to disregard human rights in so doing. In other words, they don't have the right to attack civilian targets.

You have put succinctly a thing many have some difficulty understanding.

How can "The U.S.-backed Abbas, who has minimal support among Palestinians" bring peace to his poeple?

He is asking for more support from the Palestinian counsel. Political power is built gradually, and democracy has yet to take hold in the PA areas. Who can bring peace to the region? to the Palestinians? That is still the question of the century.

Which was, I repeat, “How can The U.S.-backed Abbas, who has minimal support among Palestinians bring peace to his people?”

He can, he won't. At least Abbas tried.

How can the U.S.-backed Abbas, who has minimal support among Palestinians bring peace to his people?

Peace with a marionette or peace with people?

My answer may not be what you wanted, but it is correct.

see you appreciate your own non-answer!

Such a person may be able to take steps that others, locked into prior statements and commitments and relationships, may be unable to take.

There can be no denying the great bulk of people, both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, want first and foremost for this damned business to be over, and to enjoy security in their persons and property and livelihoods, and a reasonable degree of prosperity. The established "popular" leadership of neither side seems capable of providing the people with this: any person who does provide them this can count on acquiring support, by being the embodiment of something the people greatly desire. Political support, aftyer all, is not a static concept.

Another point worth small notice is just what is meant by the statement Mr. Abbas has little support in the first place. The politics of Arab Palestine is highly factionated, and remains greatly influenced by kinship, patronage, and the possession of weaponry. Mr. Abbas has no record as a fighter, having been more active as a diplomat: he has no armed cadre loyal to him; he has never had much hand in the disbursement of monies, and therefore has none dependent on him for patronage.

Such a person may be able to take steps that others, locked into prior statements and commitments and relationships, may be unable to take.

There can be no denying the great bulk of people, both Israelis and Arab Palestinians, want first and foremost for this damned business to be over, and to enjoy security in their persons and property and livelihoods, and a reasonable degree of prosperity. The established "popular" leadership of neither side seems capable of providing the people with this: any person who does provide them this can count on acquiring support, by being the embodiment of something the people greatly desire. Political support, aftyer all, is not a static concept.

Another point worth small notice is just what is meant by the statement Mr. Abbas has little support in the first place. The politics of Arab Palestine is highly factionated, and remains greatly influenced by kinship, patronage, and the possession of weaponry. Mr. Abbas has no record as a fighter, having been more active as a diplomat: he has no armed cadre loyal to him; he has never had much hand in the disbursement of monies, and therefore has none dependent on him for patronage.

I, in general, agree with the “possible” positive outcome of having a “figurehead” , i.e. a good figurehead vs. a bad figurehead.

Given “Mr. Abbas has no record as a fighter, having been more active as a diplomat: he has no armed cadre loyal to him; he has never had much hand in the disbursement of monies, and therefore has none dependent on him for patronage”, isn’t that alone a contributing factor to his failure to serve as a “good figurehead” considering “The politics of Arab Palestine is highly factionated, and remains greatly influenced by kinship, patronage, and the possession of weaponry”?

Is that the "fighters" are rather locked into rejectionist style positions by their past behavior and statements, and that the Israeli government (and probably not just the current one) would be unwilling to deal with them as bloody-handed fellows. Admittedly the Arab Palestinians could make a reciprocal charge with much justice, but the fact remains that in this matter, it is the Israelis who must be placated, and not the Arab Palestinians, if any progress is to be achieved: the Israelis have the power to disregard any position of the Arab Palestinians, and can much better ride out a continuance of the present impasse than the Arab Palestinians. This may not be just, or right, or anything else, but it does seem the actual fact of the circumstance, and so cannot be disregarded where practical steps are concerned.

It certainly does not have to be like this. The English managed eventually to work around to dealing with former "hard men" of the I.R.A., for instance. There has been a recent report that a prominent figure in Israeli security circles has opined that Mr. Barghouti, currently on trial in Israel, might be a figure who could be dealt with, and one able to deliver a practical peace. The "bloody hands" argument does not carry much weight with me, personally, for either side. In war, particularly long war, only those who have shown themselve apt in that endeavor will ever much impress themselves on the mass of the people.

you are advocating the formula of appeasement for the Arab side. And, how is a “useful figurehead” supposed to sell a deal of appeasement to his people from whom, we agree, he has no apparent popular support?

This, unfortunately, does not seem to be forthcoming. The Israelis must give Mr. Abbas something concrete, that will enable him to show accomplishment to the people. Abiding by the "road map" requirement for cessation of settlement expansion, and beginning to dismantle recently erected settlements, would be a good start.

Remove the Wadi Sa'ir, Bet Fouriq and Abu Dis checkpoints (then remove the rest of the internal checkpoints in a staggered fashion).

Immediately stop building the wall, and open all the internal access points (they're closed at the moment).

Declare an end to liquidations of political figures, (but retain the option to strike those involved in terrorism).

Allow Arafat free movement.

Cancel all settlement building tenders.

Withdraw the IDF from 80%+ of the WB.

Pay the $300m owed to the PA (require international oversight of the distribution).

Cancel the waivers needed to get into Gaza.

Allow all humanitarian NGOS immediate access to WB and Gaza.

Stop deportation of ISM members.

Restrict travel on Jewish bypass roads until after rush hour.

End the "back to back" restriction on transport of goods.

Stop producing "come on" ads for settlement (start producing "come back" ones).

--

Those are the easy things, off the top of my head. They cost Israel virtually nothing and don't increase the risk of terrorism IMO. They can all be done now, roadmap or no roadmap.

Also back then, they were also seriously entertaining the prospects of a real Palestinian state.

No, I don't see the pattern here :eyes:

No suicide attacks does not exactly mean no terrorism. There were many other forms of attacks, and also attacks that were apprehended. That is the attacks were prevented by security forces.

The peace process, which Clinton tried to jump start with Camp David II, ended up with Arafat walking out (he accepted the Oslo accords and the Nobel Prize for Peace). Then the Intifada II.

Palestinian leaders don't care how many Israelis militants kill.