Uhhh... the majority of Palestinians elected the Hamas to be their governing party in 2006. The Hamas had 74 seats compared to Fatah's 45 seats in the legislative branch before Abbas dissolved the Hamas led government.
In addition, just because any agreement signed by the Fatah alone does not represent the entire Palestine. The people of Gaza Strip will not recognize the agreement. This is just going to escalate the conflict. IMO, this is an attempt by Bush to legitimize the use of force by Israel to finally take down the Hamas by force.
Certainly - and that part of it is disappointing to me. But it's also a problem with the government structure that they have there that Abbas *can* legally dissolve the Hamas-led goverment. I don't pretend to understand the system, but my understanding is that Israel has sometihng like that too, where every so often, the government is dissolved and re-elected because the parties can't agree.
I agree - but that's a fight that Palestinians NEED to have. They are never going to have peace until they have one voice, and right now, they have two in Fatah and Hamas. One of those needs to be dismantled or defeated in order for any process to move forward. This certainly may be - I'm not sure that's a bad thing though. Until Hamas either dissolves or renounces terrorism and becomes a functional government, peace isn't really possible. It doesn't make sense for the West to subsidize a group who refuses to renounce terrorism.
so you don't want palestinians to pick democratically. you want to pick which palestinian group will be more likely to make a deal? the palestinians did choose. they picked hamas overwhelmingly. this government right now that is running the west bank is not democratic. it wasn't picked by the palestinians. why is that government representative of the palestinian people during such critical negotiations? secondly the notion that only those governments that recognize a right to exist for israel, does israel 'recognize' a palestinian state? shouldn't this be a two way street?
many would disagree. and even if he can, the fact is that it is not democratic. it is not representative. and even if we assume that legally abbas can legally dissolve, he must have an approval from the majority of the legislative body within 30 days. he didn't get that since there is no quorum for the body. and on top of it, this isn't occurring in a palestinian vacuum. this was a coup of a democratically elected government by israel and us support. the US heavily armed and trained fatah gunmen to help it ensure power. the same fatah that is known for doing this: nyt once again we're taking sides of a undemocratic corrupt and incredibly ruthless regime. its not about this side is better than that side. first of all we shouldn't take a side. secondly when we demand democratic elections, if we fail to respect them and punish the electorate, we're being hypocrites and won't be taken seriously ever in our push for democracy. and third we really should have competent people who can predict the realities of elections, and perhaps not push so strongly if we won't come out on top, if we're not willing to respect any of the possibilities.
link U.S. ready to talk with Iran over Iraq security By MATTHEW LEE Associated Press TOOLS Email Get section feed Print Subscribe NOW Comments Recommend (1) WASHINGTON — The United States is ready to hold new direct talks with Iran on the deteriorating security situation in Iraq, the State Department said today. The Bush administration accused Tehran of supporting Shia insurgents there. "We think that given the situation in Iraq and given Iran's continued behavior that is leading to further instability in Iraq, that it would be appropriate to have another face-to-face meeting to directly convey to the Iranian authorities that if they wish to see a more stable, secure, peaceful Iraq, which is what they have said they would like to see, that they need to change their behavior," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "They need to stop supporting sectarian militias that are exacerbating sectarian tensions, they need to stop supporting EFP networks that pose a threat to our troops," he said, referring to Explosively Formed Penetrators, devices crafted to penetrate armored vehicles that Washington claims are being sent to insurgents by Iran. "It is important to directly convey to the Iranian government the importance of their changing their behavior, not only for the safety of our troops, but also for the future of Iraq," McCormack said. He said a date for the talks had yet to be arranged but suggested that discussions were under way on setting a time for the meeting, which would be the first between the two arch-foes since late May when U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, met Iranian officials in Baghdad. That May 28 meeting marked a break in a 27-year diplomatic freeze and was expected to have been followed within a month by a second encounter. But since then, bitterness has mounted as U.S. officials have stepped up allegations of Iranian involvement in the Iraq insurgency. Tensions have also risen over Tehran's detention of four Iranian-American scholars and activists charged with endangering national security. The U.S. has demanded their release, saying the charges against them are false. At the same time, Iran has called for the release of five Iranians detained in Iraq, whom the United States has said are the operations chief and other members of Iran s elite Quds Force, which is accused of arming and training Iraqi militants. Iran says the five are diplomats in Iraq with permission of the government. Until today the United States had resisted another round of talks despite entreaties from the Iraqi government and Iranian hints at their willingness to sit down. Earlier today, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said Iran was willing to hold a second round of talks with the United States over stabilizing Iraq in the near future if Washington officially asks for one. "We look positively at holding a second round of talks. There exists a possibility to hold such talks in the near future," Mottaki told a news conference in Tehran. However, he said the U.S. had not yet made such a request through official channels. The Iraqi government, which is backed by the U.S. but closely allied to Iran, has been trying to get the two sides together, hoping some cooperation will reduce violence in the wartorn country.
I guess Bush does listen, it just takes a year to sink in to his thick skull. Too bad he wasn't doing this earlier.
And it makes no sense for a group to renounce terrorism in exchange for "talks." You're asking them to surrender their most powerful bargaining chip before coming to the negotiating table.
I agree with you that I don't see this as a bad thing but I have some very strong doubts anything substantive will come out of this. To me this is way too little and way too late..
Unless you believe a diplomatic solution is impossible, any additional efforts are welcome. An argument could be made that these efforts are, say, 40 years too late.
