Abbas says he will not run for re election.

[Lemon law]

In some what of a shock, Abbas, the de facto leader of the West Bank Palestinians says he will not run for election in the upcoming January elections.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/world/middleeast/06mideast.html?ref=global-home

Maybe its due to the Hillary Clinton trip to the Mid east. The more or less united Arab and Abbas position was a zero tolerance policy for any continued Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Which Clinton effectively broke by bring Egypt aboard on a negotiate with Israel on settlements. Thereby breaking the Abbas position and kicking the can even further down the road as the remaining land for the formation of a Palestinian State gets tinier and tinier to the point of no longer viability.

As it is, Abbas is older than dirt, he faces stiff opposition from young turks eager to reunite with Hamas, and may be giving up because he sees his non violent course of action as something that is failed policy.

As others see it as simply a ploy to get his way and create a draft movement for his later re election.

Its simply another Joker in the deck in the Mid-east and a time will tell for both the Fatah party and the entire Mid-east.

 

[Red Irish]

Sad news, but I fully agree with him: nothing is being done to remove existing illegal settlements or prevent their growth and that simply isn't good enough.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Sad news, but I fully agree with him: nothing is being done to remove existing illegal settlements or prevent their growth and that simply isn't good enough.

whom should Israel discuss the situtation with. There is no government/leadership that actually represents the Palestinian people.

Anything that Abbas wants is counteracted and/or undermined by actions of other groups.

When the Palestinians are able to speak with one voice, then progress can also be made

 

[kylebisme]

Palestinians overwhelmingly united in wanting a just two-state solution on the basis of international law, but Israel has never been intrested in anything of the sort, which is why Israel keeps holding Palestinians under overwelming military force while colonizing their homeland out from under them and killing off anyone who gets in the way.

And just for a bit of historical perspective:

whom should America discuss the situtation with. There is no government/leadership that actually represents the Sioux people.

Anything that Sitting Bull wants is counteracted and/or undermined by actions of other groups.

When the Sioux are able to speak with one voice, then progress can also be made

 

[Lemon law]

whom should Israel discuss the situtation with. There is no government/leadership that actually represents the Palestinian people.

Anything that Abbas wants is counteracted and/or undermined by actions of other groups.

When the Palestinians are able to speak with one voice, then progress can also be made

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While I agree that Common Courtesy has a point even though it leaves that other voice, namely the voices of surrounding Arab Countries out of the equation.

What is new in the entire 61 year history in the conflict is a total split of the Palestinian people, 1.5 million in Gaza support Hamas as Hamas has purged Fatah out, 1.5 million support Fatah in the West Bank as Fatah has purged Hamas out.

But in terms of the overall struggle, Fatah in the West bank now have to contend with 300,000 Israeli settlers, and Hamas, as the more hopeless ghetto, can at least say, no Israeli settler will dare try to settle in Gaza.

Leaving Abbas in the position of Uncle Tom, with the recent failed Annapolis peace conference making it clearer. One would think that Israel would have rewarded Fatah for its non violent stance, and instead did nothing but take advantage by increasing its Israeli settlement rate in the West bank.

Net effect, Abbas and non violence is castrated, and as the implied Palestinian and Arab lesson is therefore increased terrorism, its not exactly what any mid east peace process requires for progress.

But Common Courtesy may indeed get his wish of "When the Palestinians are able to speak with one voice, then progress can also be made" Sadly it may come at a price of a total alliance of Palestinians and Arabs as they unite in anti Israeli terrorism coming from all directions.

 

[Jhhnn]

whom should Israel discuss the situtation with. There is no government/leadership that actually represents the Palestinian people.

Anything that Abbas wants is counteracted and/or undermined by actions of other groups.

When the Palestinians are able to speak with one voice, then progress can also be made

Israel has employed divide and conquer tactics wrt the Palestinians for decades. They financed Hamas in the beginning, to act as a counter to the PLO, and recently helped Fatah stage a coup against the new Hamas govt in the West Bank.

And now they're actually believed when they use that disunity to avoid settlement of any kind.

The sad truth is that all Israeli talk is designed to cover the inexorable grinding away by the settler machinery working in the background. They'll make no real bargain, ever, unless forced to do so, and they'll continue to trade peace for territory as they've done all along. If there weren't violent opposition to their actions, they'd create it, and may well have done so, because it allows them to shift the blame to the victims.

 

[SamurAchzar]

Israel has employed divide and conquer tactics wrt the Palestinians for decades. They financed Hamas in the beginning, to act as a counter to the PLO, and recently helped Fatah stage a coup against the new Hamas govt in the West Bank.

And now they're actually believed when they use that disunity to avoid settlement of any kind.

The sad truth is that all Israeli talk is designed to cover the inexorable grinding away by the settler machinery working in the background. They'll make no real bargain, ever, unless forced to do so, and they'll continue to trade peace for territory as they've done all along. If there weren't violent opposition to their actions, they'd create it, and may well have done so, because it allows them to shift the blame to the victims.

How does that explain the Israeli disengagement from Gaza, during which Gaza was ethnically cleansed of JEWS (heaven forbid a Jew living peacefully under Palestinian control - unlike the 20% or so of Israeli Arabs living under the Israeli regime)? Not only that, but an entire government was elected (Sharon/Kadima) just to perform this disengagement, because the Israelis, with some unexplained naivety I must add, thought it would help promote peace.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit

Both sides blamed the other for the failure of the talks: the Palestinians claiming they were not offered enough, and the Israelis claiming that they could not reasonably offer more. According to The Continuum Political Encyclopedia of the Middle East, "most of the criticism for [the] failure [of the 2000 Camp David Summit] was leveled at Arafat."[11]

Ehud Barak offered Arafat an eventual 91% of the West Bank, and all of the Gaza Strip, with Palestinian control over Eastern Jerusalem as the capital of the new Palestinian state; in addition, all refugees could apply for compensation of property from an international fund to which Israel would contribute along with other countries. The Palestinians wanted the immediate withdrawal of the Israelis from the occupied territories, and only subsequently the Palestinian authority would crush all Palestinian terror organizations. The Israeli response as stated by Shlomo Ben-Ami was "we can't accept the demand for a return to the borders of June 1967 as a pre-condition for the negotiation."[12]

Clinton blamed Arafat after the failure of the talks, stating, "I regret that in 2000 Arafat missed the opportunity to bring that nation into being and pray for the day when the dreams of the Palestinian people for a state and a better life will be realized in a just and lasting peace." [2] The failure to come to an agreement was widely attributed to Yasser Arafat, as he walked away from the table without making a concrete counter-offer and because Arafat did little to quell the series of Palestinian riots that began shortly after the summit.[11][13][14] Arafat was also accused of scuttling the talks by Nabil Amr, a former minister in the Palestinian Authority.[15]

In 2004, two books by American participants at the summit were published that placed the blame for the failure of the summit on Arafat. The books were The Missing Peace by longtime US Middle East envoy Dennis Ross and My Life by President Clinton. Clinton wrote that Arafat once complimented Clinton by telling him, "You are a great man." Clinton responded, "I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you made me one."[16][17]

Need I say more?