A Demand for Elections - in the Palestinian Authority

Guy Bechor asks:   Who does Abbas represent?

and insists that

Israel must demand Palestinian general elections be held before peace negotiations resume

Why?

Who exactly does Abbas represent, apart from himself? He was elected in the Palestinian elections organized by Israel in January 2005, and years have passed since, for all intents and purposes, his term ended....the government of resigning Prime Minister Salam Fayyad was never legitimate either, because it was never approved by parliament, which, as I mentioned, was dissolved. So who does Abbas represent? Currently he only represents himself...He certainly doesn't represent Gaza – its Hamas rulers are his most bitter enemies. He certainly doesn’t represent Hamas in the West Bank, nor does he represent the Salafis or global jihadists. So does he represent Fatah? According to Fayyad, "this party, Fatah, is going to break down, there is so much disenchantment."...

...Still, who does Abbas represent? We must find out the answer to this question before we begin negotiating with him, not after...Future Palestinian leaders will claim, justifiably, that the 78-year-old Abbas conducted negotiations without any authority, so they are not bound by the agreements he had signed...

...Agreements are not reached in an imaginary reality, and the demand for Palestinian elections must precede any diplomatic process, if we want this process to be genuine and binding. 

^

Finally, A Negotiated Settlement

Naw, not here in the Middle East.

In LA:-

Mel Gibson and his ex-girlfriend have reached a financial and custody settlement of a bitter dispute that spawned a criminal case and left the Academy Award winner’s reputation damaged.  Los Angeles Superior Court officials said in a statement late Friday that Gibson and Russian musician Oksana Grigorieva had reached an agreement after days of negotiation. Terms and conditions of the settlement were not announced, but a hearing Wednesday will be held to discuss the financial terms.

Is anyone happy about this anti-Semite?

^

Words of Wisdom

“If the conflict is about the size of Israel, then long and difficult negotiations can eventually resolve the problem. But if the conflict is about the existence of Israel, then serious negotiation is impossible.”

Bernard Lewis


- - -

I Don't Like The Math

It's being reported:

U.S. seeks 4-month E. J'lem building freeze in exchange for direct talks

One of the U.S. administration's requests to Israel regarding the peace process with the Palestinians is a four-month construction freeze in all parts of East Jerusalem. In exchange, the United States would pressure Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to hold direct talks with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead of the indirect talks the Palestinians have agreed to.

An official in Jerusalem said the U.S. administration is demanding that Israel freeze construction in East Jerusalem, including Jewish neighborhoods such as Neveh Yaakov, French Hill and of course Ramat Shlomo, which sparked the recent tensions between Israel and the United States.

The freeze would last four months, the time frame the Arab League has authorized for indirect talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel.

If, for a 10-month suspension in Judea and Samaria we got bupkas, why should we go another 4 in Jerusalem's over-the-Green Line neighborhoods?

What proximity talks? Where are they taking place?

All that happened was that the Arabs have our suspension for nothing and demand more for face-to-face, which we already had?

Olmert Drops Jews, Goes For Outsiders

Back in December, I had a letter in the Jerusalem Post magazine dealing with Ehud Olmert's rejection of outside Jewish interference in fixing the future of Jerusalem.

And today what says Olmert:

Olmert's proposal to the Palestinians is that the talks on sovereignty and control over the holy sites in Jerusalem be held under an international umbrella, where governments and other interested parties will be able to contribute their views...The role of the international parties would be to bolster the agreement that the two sides will agree upon in direct negotiations.

...This is the first time that Israel has proposed involving international parties on the Jerusalem issue, even if their role will be limited to a consultative one.

...Olmert is probably planning to include in the negotiations members of the international Quartet (the U.N., U.S., EU and Russia), as well as Jordan, Egypt, the Vatican and possibly the king of Morocco. From Israel's point of view, broadening the international, inter-faith element only increases the chances of finding an acceptable agreement, even though there is risk in involving parties who are opposed to Israel's sovereign control over the holy sites in Jerusalem.

Seems the man can't be trusted to hold on to a principle unless, of course, one considers that commitments made to Jews are non-binding at for him, it's only the non-Jews and especially Israel's enemies that mustbe obliged, no matter what - history, religion, politics, security.

Negotiations

Update on Negotiations

I posted a few hours ago on Olmert's attempt to becloud the issue of negotiations, yes/no and on what issues, etc.

This evening, Condi Rice held a press conference in Ramallah and an excerpt:

QUESTION: (Via interpreter) Dr. Rice, you gave yesterday ideas that --
discussed ideas with President Abbas regarding the document for Annapolis conference. What are these ideas? And are these ideas that have helped the progress that we have noticed today in your discussions with President Abbas.

President Abbas, you said that there is a breakthrough in the negotiations. What kind of a breakthrough? What kind of progress?

SECRETARY RICE: Well, we have, frankly, a condition that I very much welcome now, which is that we appear to be on course to prepare seriously for continuous, ongoing negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis for the establishment of a Palestinian state for the first time in many years, in seven years. We need to focus to make certain that everything that we do creates the best possible atmosphere for the day after Annapolis as well as for Annapolis. And those are the discussions that we have been having.

and

PRESIDENT ABBAS: (Via interpreter) Negotiations are difficult and will continue to be difficult until the very last moment, until we start the implementation; and negotiations will continue to be difficult, but in fact there are
encouraging signs and signals that have happened today and before this day. And
without these encouraging signs that are -- we are receiving from the American
Administration and that we are also seeing coming out from the Israeli side, then there will be no reason to continue the negotiations. But we see that these negotiations are encouraging and are positive, but we need to take into
consideration that they will continue to be difficult until the very end because a cause that is more than one hundred years old we will not find -- it is not easy to find a solution for it in few days or weeks or even months.

Notice that 100 years bit?

So, Israel is a 100-year old occupier?

Olmert is An (Oh, Well)

He said yesterday at the Saban Conference:

Annapolis is a landmark, it is an international seal of approval, on the path to negotiations and of the genuine effort to achieve the realization of the vision of two nations: the State of Israel – the nation of the Jewish people; and the Palestinian state – the nation of the Palestinian people.

There will not be negotiations on the vision; there will be no bargaining about this fundamental goal which the U.S. President, George Bush, declared so eloquently: “Two countries for two peoples". A Jewish state for the Jewish people – a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people.

We will not negotiate about the right of existence for the State of Israel as a Jewish state. We will not bargain about the right of the Palestinian people to their own state.

Both are fundamental conditions, basic positions, obvious understandings which cannot be denied. All the basic questions, all the substantive problems, all the historic questions which are pertinent to the disagreement between us and the Palestinians are on the agenda. We will avoid none of them, we will not run from discussing any of them.

Annapolis will not be a place for negotiations, but it will certainly be a starting point. Annapolis will be the jumping-off point for continued serious and in-depth negotiations which will not avoid any issue or ignore any division which has clouded our relations with the Palestinian people for many years.

Now you tell me, is there not a contradiction between the blue italics and the orange italics? How can there be no negotionas and then a continuation of negotiations?

Have I erred?