GAZA

In his last post Dalek has in effect said that the last fortnight has exposed Abbas as a complete sell out, and that the Palestinian people would have to turn their back on an Abbas led Fatah if they are to secure a state that is free of Zionist occupation or hegemony. 

 

‘Prison Master’ is a strong accusation against a man who was a founding member of Fatah, and has won an election as the President of the Palestinian Authority, but that is what he has been called by Dalek. 

 

The return of Hamas suicide bombers might wake Dalek up; I am sure that along with everyone who has ever posted on LS, Dalek would not be pleased with this development.  It points to a further breakdown in Hamas discipline and unity. 

Progressives looking for the establishment of the unified Palestinian state asap, cannot support this vicious indiscriminate assault on humanity.  Compare this idiocy to the activity of the armed possession of the border and the release of the masses for a shopping trip etc.  Hamas obviously has deep divisions developing.

 

Fatah has more support in Gaza than does Hamas.  The latest polling prior to these bombers, but after the wall breach has Hamas lifting its support by 6%, but this lifts Hamas from 33% to 39% and reduces Fatah from 52% to 46%.  Small wonder that Abbas is calling for an end to the coup and early elections! 

 

As for the pace to end the war; I note that the meetings between the negotiators or leaders has not been suspended even in the midst of suicide bombers and annoying rockets.  Olmert may think something will be achieved by further delay and that can’t be known, but if he wanted delay, suspension would seem the obvious way to go.  That's what has happened  previously.  But what he could use as an excuse for suspension (given these current conditions) he didn’t, and the PA keeps coming to meetings.  My taunters must admit that the Zionists have used very flimsy excuses in the past.

A flimsy excuse now would be a direct slap at Bush and that would not go down to well.  So Bush still has good cause to think a Palestinian state is possible this year.  After all even old dogs still wag tails.

Patrick. The sad truth is that Abbas and the Palestinian Authority have become the keeper of the prison that is "Palestine". Since the split with Hamas the PA has been forced into a more open manifestation of this role. That said, it is also clear that both Hamas and Fatah are seriously infected with Jihadi's who continually provide excuses for the ongoing murder of Palestinians by the fascist Israelis.

I never said" the Palestinian people would have to turn their back on an Abbas led Fatah if they are to secure a state that is free of Zionist occupation or hegemony". 

In fact I believe the opposite. The Palestinian people will have to find a way to unite the two parties or to create a new revolutionary organisation that is free from the corruption that dogs Fatah and the fundamentalism that informs much of Hamas.

I note that the moment Hamas won the elections the US  and Israel and most of the European countries went hammer and tongs to create a split and to legitimise Fatah as the real controller of the Palestinian people. I note also that while they spoke loudly of Democracy in Iraq the LS people were silent about democracy for the Palestinians when Hamas won the elections. Apparently only a democracy sanctioned and supported by the US jackboot is acceptable to LS.

Dalek

The Washington Post gives an account here of the 2006 elections that were won by Hamas.

Extract:

"Hamas Sweeps Palestinian Elections, Complicating Peace Efforts in Mideast

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, January 27, 2006; A01

RAMALLAH, West Bank, Jan. 26 -- The radical Islamic movement Hamas won a large majority in the new Palestinian parliament, according to official election results announced Thursday, trouncing the governing Fatah party in a contest that could dramatically reshape the Palestinians' relations with Israel and the rest of the world.

In Wednesday's voting, Hamas claimed 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats, giving the party at war with Israel the right to form the next cabinet under the Palestinian Authority's president, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah."

I know every-body on the extreme right wants to forget all that history but it does make it difficult to sell the democracy for the middle east plan. The "democracy" has to be approved and sanctioned by the US or it will be overthrown or cast aside.

Dalek

 

 

 

Dalek is distorting the whole issue of what the head of the PLO and PA, Abbas (both with rules made and approved by Palestinians not aproved by either the great or the little Satan) is doing. 

 

Abbas is authorised and is negotiating the ending of the failed war for greater Israel and other matters.  He entitled to demand that Hamas end its coup and that the Palestinian people be given the opportunity to elect a new government. 

 

Whatever happened when Hamas formed its government and then tried to implement their policies while still subject to occupation by the Zionists (and their long term backers the United States) is no longer even remotely relevant.  Of course the enemy of the Palestinian people will make trouble. 

 

Hamas threw a coup against the rest of the Palestinian polity and grabbed Gaza!  Abbas can't pretend that away.  He has to bring that situation to an end or fail.

 

The PA is run on Palestinian rules not US rules.

 

I think you will find a good account of the Hamas coup here

 It is the IISS site. I hold no brief for Hamas, but it seems to me that they were forced into this "coup" by the reaction of the US, Israel and Fatah - including the US sanctioned assassination of their parliamentarians by Fatah operatives. The response by Hamas was rather analogous to the actions of the Bolsheviks in post 1917 Russia; in my view. Perhaps those more steeped in the history of Revolutionary Russia would care to comment. Certainly the reaction of the entire "civilised" western world was the same. Outrage that the Palestinian (Russian?) people had chosen to support an organisation that was entirely unacceptable to their sensibilities and interests.

Dalek  

There is useful and informative account of the machinations of Bush and Rice vis a vis Hamas here.

So much for Pax Bush in Gaza and Palestine?

Dalek

Its interesting that Bush's speech yesterday to the Israeli Knessett attracted attention for the reason that he chose to ignore political convention and attach Obama, albeit obliquely, on an overseas forum

 

That's really of no consequence. What is far more significant is that for all the talk and hopes of Bush bringing pressure to bear on the Israelis to engage the Palestinians politically , he couldn't even bring himself to mention either the Annapolis process ( remember that?) or the continued building in the occupied territories. The only settlements that the Israelis are interested in are built with bricks and mortar and situated in the occupied territories and Bush seems quite happy with that.

 

Does anyone still think that Bush is, or ever has been, a progressive, who has ever made any serious attempt to bring about a Palestinian State?

 

 

I wonder if Cyberman has continued to keep up with news of President Bush's speeches?

 President Bush also met with Palestinian President Abbas in Sharm al Sheikh, Egypt on May 17th:

And then we talked, of course, about the Palestinian state. I told the President that I am absolutely committed to working with he and his negotiators, as well as the Israelis, to get a state defined. And I do so for a couple of reasons. One, it breaks my heart to see the vast potential of the Palestinian people really wasted. They're good, smart, capable people that when given a chance will build a thriving homeland. It'll be an opportunity to end the suffering that takes place in the Palestinian Territory.

And the second reason I am for it is because it's the only way for lasting peace. The President and his team are committed to peace. They stand squarely against those who use violence to stop the peace process. And for that I admire you and your team, Mr. President, and I commit to you once again that our government will help achieve a dream, a dream that you have -- and the truth of the matter is, a dream that the Israelis have, which is two states living side by side in peace.

President Abbas replied:

Mr. President, thank you very much for receiving us today. Of course we have talked about the peace process and the negotiations that are taking place these days between us and the Israeli side. We know very well that you, personally, as well as your administration, are committed to reach peace before the end of 2008. Therefore, we are working very seriously and very aggressively with the hope that we will be able to achieve this objective before the end of the year.

We have talked with the President about the details of the negotiations that are taking place between our side and the Israeli side. And of course we also talked about a wide range of issues that affect the entire region, but also affects the Palestinian people. Because it is very important for us that the entire Arab region will be living in stability in order to be able to achieve peace in our Palestinian Territory.

We are very delighted that the President is following all the details of everything and every discussion that is taking place in the Palestinian negotiations, as well as issues in the region.

Therefore, we're delighted to continue our engagement with you, Mr. President, in order to be able to achieve all the objectives, which are ours and yours at the same time.

President Bush also addressed the World Economic Forum in the last few hours:

America is a much younger Nation, but we have made our mark by advancing ideals as old as the Pyramids.  Those ideals of liberty and justice have sparked a revolution across much of the world.  This hopeful movement made its way to places where dictators once reigned and peaceful democracies seemed unimaginable:  places like Chile, Indonesia, Poland, the Philippines, and South Korea.  These nations have different histories and different traditions.  Yet each made the same democratic transition, and they did it on their own terms.  In these countries, millions every year are rising from poverty.  Women are realizing overdue opportunities.  And people of faith are finding the blessing of worshipping God in peace.

Note that 4 out of the 5 nations mentioned were dictatorships propped up by the USA.

We must stand with the Palestinian people, who have suffered for decades and earned the right to a homeland of their own.  I strongly support a two-state solution -- a democratic Palestine based on law and justice that will live in peace and security alongside a democratic Israel.  I believe that the Palestinian people will build a thriving democracy in which entrepreneurs pursue their dreams, families own homes in lively communities, and young people grow up with hope in the future. Last year at Annapolis, we made a hopeful beginning toward a peace agreement that will outline what this nation of Palestine will look like -- a contiguous state where Palestinians live in prosperity and dignity. 

Oh, that would be the Annapolis process that Cyberman says President Bush can't bring himself to mention. Note that President Bush specifically mentions a "contiguous state", as opposed to the scattered settlements that President Clinton expected the Palestinians to accept.

A peace agreement is in the Palestinians' interest, it is in Israel's interest, it is in Arab states' interest, and it is in the world's interest. And I firmly believe that with leadership and courage, we can reach that peace agreement this year.

This is a demanding task, and it requires action on all sides. Palestinians must fight terror and continue to build the institutions of a free and peaceful society.  Israel must make tough sacrifices for peace and ease restrictions on Palestinians. Arab states, especially oil-rich nations, must seize this opportunity to invest aggressively in the Palestinian people and to move past their old resentments against Israel. And all nations in the region must stand together in confronting Hamas, which is attempting to undermine efforts at peace with continued acts of terror and violence.

Youngmarxist,

 

Its not what you say its the way that you say it! And it's where you say it, and when you say it  and to whom you say it.

 

Its easy enough to spout all this stuff when you are meeting Arab leaders. If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,  had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

 

Apparently, by the end of it all,  even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

 

I don't think you can fault President Bush for not maintaining his position. But 'balanced',  it ain't! 

 

 

Cyberman says:

 If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

 Why? If I was trying to maneouver between the need to get Israel out of the West Bank, and the need to not publically offend the powerful pro-Israel interests in the US Right, I would go to the Knesset and talk about how much I admired Gallant Little Israel, and how much I enjoyed the piroshke that the colourful diner near Yale used to sell. I certainly wouldn't make it obvious what I was trying to do, and get the whole of Israel's "Eretz Yisrael " Zionists in an uproar.

Apparently, by the end of it all, even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

Once again Cyberman, you can't be bothered to provide sources for your assertions. This is a link to the BBC report of what Abbas said, which took me all of thirty seconds to find on Google.

Now, if President Abbas was so angry at President Bush, why did he bother to meet him at all? If he thought that President Bush was not interested in a Palestinian state, why not angrily refuse to meet him and denounce him in the strongest terms? What did President Abbas have to gain from meeting President Bush if what you say is true?

Cyberman says:

 If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

 Why? If I was trying to maneouver between the need to get Israel out of the West Bank, and the need to not publically offend the powerful pro-Israel interests in the US Right, I would go to the Knesset and talk about how much I admired Gallant Little Israel, and how much I enjoyed the piroshke that the colourful diner near Yale used to sell. I certainly wouldn't make it obvious what I was trying to do, and get the whole of Israel's "Eretz Yisrael " Zionists in an uproar.

Apparently, by the end of it all, even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

Once again Cyberman, you can't be bothered to provide sources for your assertions. This is a link to the BBC report of what Abbas said, which took me all of thirty seconds to find on Google.

Now, if President Abbas was so angry at President Bush, why did he bother to meet him at all? If he thought that President Bush was not interested in a Palestinian state, why not angrily refuse to meet him and denounce him in the strongest terms? What did President Abbas have to gain from meeting President Bush if what you say is true?

Cyberman says:

 If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

 Why? If I was trying to maneouver between the need to get Israel out of the West Bank, and the need to not publically offend the powerful pro-Israel interests in the US Right, I would go to the Knesset and talk about how much I admired Gallant Little Israel, and how much I enjoyed the piroshke that the colourful diner near Yale used to sell. I certainly wouldn't make it obvious what I was trying to do, and get the whole of Israel's "Eretz Yisrael " Zionists in an uproar.

Apparently, by the end of it all, even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

Once again Cyberman, you can't be bothered to provide sources for your assertions. This is a link to the BBC report of what Abbas said, which took me all of thirty seconds to find on Google.

Now, if President Abbas was so angry at President Bush, why did he bother to meet him at all? If he thought that President Bush was not interested in a Palestinian state, why not angrily refuse to meet him and denounce him in the strongest terms? What did President Abbas have to gain from meeting President Bush if what you say is true?

Cyberman says:

 If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

 Why? If I was trying to maneouver between the need to get Israel out of the West Bank, and the need to not publically offend the powerful pro-Israel interests in the US Right, I would go to the Knesset and talk about how much I admired Gallant Little Israel, and how much I enjoyed the piroshke that the colourful diner near Yale used to sell. I certainly wouldn't make it obvious what I was trying to do, and get the whole of Israel's "Eretz Yisrael " Zionists in an uproar.

Apparently, by the end of it all, even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

Once again Cyberman, you can't be bothered to provide sources for your assertions. This is a link to the BBC report of what Abbas said, which took me all of thirty seconds to find on Google.

Now, if President Abbas was so angry at President Bush, why did he bother to meet him at all? If he thought that President Bush was not interested in a Palestinian state, why not angrily refuse to meet him and denounce him in the strongest terms? What did President Abbas have to gain from meeting President Bush if what you say is true?

Cyberman says:

 If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,  had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

Why? If I was trying to maneouvre the Israelis into withdrawing from the West Bank while trying not to offend the powerful pro-Israeli forces on the US Right, I wouldn't go to the Knesset and tell home truths. I'd tell beautiful lies to keep the pro-Israelis from bolting and to avoid helping the Democrats by splitting the Republican Party. I'd mention Gallant Little Israel, and talk about the piroshke that the colourful old Jewish diner in New Haven used to sell when I was at Yale.

Apparently, by the end of it all,  even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

Why can't you be bothered linking to sources that substantiate what you say, Cyberman? The link is here.

If President Abbas was so angry at President Bush, why bother to meet him at all? What could he possibly stand to gain if he really thinks that President Bush does not want to see a settlement of the West Bank question? Why not publically and loudly refuse to meet him and pose as the true defender of the Palestinian people?

Cyberman says:

 If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,  had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

Why? If I was trying to maneouvre the Israelis into withdrawing from the West Bank while trying not to offend the powerful pro-Israeli forces on the US Right, I wouldn't go to the Knesset and tell home truths. I'd tell beautiful lies to keep the pro-Israelis from bolting and to avoid helping the Democrats by splitting the Republican Party. I'd mention Gallant Little Israel, and talk about the piroshke that the colourful old Jewish diner in New Haven used to sell when I was at Yale.

Apparently, by the end of it all,  even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

Why can't you be bothered linking to sources that substantiate what you say, Cyberman? The link is here.

If President Abbas was so angry at President Bush, why bother to meet him at all? What could he possibly stand to gain if he really thinks that President Bush does not want to see a settlement of the West Bank question? Why not publically and loudly refuse to meet him and pose as the true defender of the Palestinian people?

Cyberman says:

 If Bush, or to be more precise, the dominant wing of the  US ruling class,  had been really serious about pushing the Israelis towards a settlement, he would have said the same thing at the Knesset too.

Why? If I was trying to maneouvre the Israelis into withdrawing from the West Bank while trying not to offend the powerful pro-Israeli forces on the US Right, I wouldn't go to the Knesset and tell home truths. I'd tell beautiful lies to keep the pro-Israelis from bolting and to avoid helping the Democrats by splitting the Republican Party. I'd mention Gallant Little Israel, and talk about the piroshke that the colourful old Jewish diner in New Haven used to sell when I was at Yale.

Apparently, by the end of it all,  even Abbas couldn't stomach any more of Bush's bullshit and has recently been quoted as demanding an explanation saying  "What the president said at the Knesset made us angry, and to be honest, we don't accept it" and "We have asked him to maintain a balanced position".

Why can't you be bothered linking to sources that substantiate what you say, Cyberman? The link is here.

If President Abbas was so angry at President Bush, why bother to meet him at all? What could he possibly stand to gain if he really thinks that President Bush does not want to see a settlement of the West Bank question? Why not publically and loudly refuse to meet him and pose as the true defender of the Palestinian people?