Palestinian government sworn-in

[oberliner]

A new Palestinian government based in the West Bank has been sworn-in, dominated by the Fatah faction of Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas.

It is headed by the independent politician Salam Fayyad. There are no members of the rival Hamas movement.

Hamas, which won Palestinian elections three years ago and controls Gaza, says the new government is illegal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8058499.stm

[Jim Sagle]

1. AWWW RRRRRIGGGGGHHHTTTT!!!!! That means everyone can new shut the fuck up about I/P!!!!!!!

:beer:

[Ken Burch]

3. It does?

(Oh, and I'm pretty sure nobody on DU bought you that beer, Sagle.)

[Ken Burch]

2. Well, this is interesting...there are obvious questions:

1) Can a PA government that does NOT include the majority party in the Palestinian parliament actually function?

2) On what would this government's authority be based?

3) Will this government be holding new elections to elect a parliament without the party that is now excluded? And would those elections have any validity in the eyes of the Palestinian people if the excluded party organized a successful election boycott(a boycott would be considered a success in the eyes of most outside observers if the majority of the Palestinian electorate did not turn out to vote)?

Not trying to be a wet blanket, but, basically, how does this government avoid being an exercise in futility?

[oberliner]

4. Also, can Israel negotiate with this government?

And would any agreements reached between them be considered valid?

[azurnoir]

8. That any agreement would be meaningless without Hamas

does seem to be the new talking point for those opposed to ending the occupation of the West Bank, at least now that we have a President who seems to mean business, albeit I do not seem to remember Obama saying that Hamas must be in on the deal.

[oberliner]

9. I have heard the exact opposite

I have never heard this talking point before. In fact, I have heard the exact opposite. That is to say, that those who support the Palestinian side do not consider Abbas to be legitimate. Many seem to think of him as a tool of the US/Israel and not truly representative of the Palestinian people.

There is a post to that effect on this thread in fact.

Do you believe that Israel and the US ought to negotiate with the Abbas government and ignore Hamas? Do you believe that the recently sworn in government is a legitimate representation of the Palestinian people?

[azurnoir]

11. At the moment the newly appointed Palestinian government

is what there is to work with, at least Obama and HRC seem to think so, the future is ever changing and there will be Palestinian elections, well as soon as that is OKed, but I find this sudden concern for Hamas and the legitimacy of the Palestinian government quite entertaining
as for any questions as to the new talking point see this thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3882450&mesg_id=3882450

[Mosby]

13. Anyone who disagrees with you re the IP conflict

must then support the occupation? Is that correct? What kind of stupid logic is that?

For the record I do not "support the occupation" nor have I ever made a statement to that effect.

Any reasonable person can see that for the negotiations to have legitimacy, both sides need to choose negotiators who fully represent their respective communities.

[Alamuti Lotus]

5. the only problem is (actually, not 'only') that ex-Presidents have no authority to do so

Unless he plans to continue exclusively using Israeli tanks and American money to back up his dictates.

[oberliner]

6. Who is the current President of the Palestinian Authority?

And when did this person defeat Abbas in an election?

[Alamuti Lotus]

7. former PA Pres. Abbas' term ended in early January

the fact that he continues to rule by decree and delay new elections does not change this fact. It only makes him just another Arab dictator backed by US/Israel, serving their agenda to line his own pockets just as Arafat taught them to do.

[oberliner]

10. What would you propose be done about this?

How ought this situation be rectified?

[Alamuti Lotus]

20. Are we speaking in immediate terms, or long-range?

In general, however, I would say my thoughts on this or most any subject are preceded by thunderclouds; I look not so much at the immediate/short-range of status as being anything except largely an obstacle to remove, this particular subject matter no exception.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

12. I have mixed feelings about this.

On the one hand, it seems fairly clear that this is not a completely legitimate democratic government.

On the other hand, it does seem to have at least some popular mandate, and the alternative is Hamas.

The problem, I think, is that most Palestinians believe (correctly in my view), that they have no chance of gaining a viable state through peaceful means - Israel simply isn't interested in making concessions, as proved by the recent elections - but many of them think (incorrectly in my view) that they may have a chance of doing so through violence, and so many of them back the violent party.

I have some hope that Obama may be able to convince them that even though Israel won't make concessions willingly, if the Palestinians offer peace then he will force it to do so, but I'm not overly optimistic - I think the Senate and Congress will tie his hands.

[Vegasaurus]

14. When did the Palestinians "offer peace"?

Before or after they claimed to be sworn to Israel's destruction?

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. 2000, at Camp David, is one obvious answer to that question. N.T.

[Jim Sagle]

17. Yeah, they walked out.

[Shaktimaan]

18. You lost me there.

The Palestinians didn't make any offer at all during Camp David in 2000. Arafat left without even making a counter-offer. In fact, the Mitchell Report concluded that the second intifada occurred largely due to the failure of the 2000 talks.

Israel simply isn't interested in making concessions, as proved by the recent elections

That's absurd. Israelis were overwhelmingly in favor of trading land for peace. The recent election results resulted from the feeling that Israeli concessions have failed to bring about their intended result. At no point did the Palestinians ever engage Israel peacefully. There was just "violence" and "more violence". During Oslo Israel began making concessions based on the promise of peace. But the result was a HUGE increase in terrorism. The Palestinians failed to uphold any of their obligations under the treaty.

The withdrawal from Gaza is another example. That was certainly a concession (and a golden opportunity for the Palestinians) which immediately brought about increased terrorism. Israelis don't feel that peace is possible right now. So they're primarily interested in security. After all, granting the Palestinians autonomy and redeploying their troops resulted in unprecedented violence. But building the barrier and increasing checkpoints mitigated it.

[Vegasaurus]

22. The Palestinians got practically everything they asked for in 2000

land, money.

The fact that Arafat walked out and started the Intifada proves that the Palestinians were not interested in peace, only in eternal war.

[Violet_Crumble]

23. That's some revisionist history yr using there...

Care to give some specifics about this 'practically everything they asked for' claim?

[Vegasaurus]

24. 100% of Gaza (which they have now, and have trashed)

97% of the WB and reparations for all homes lost (an offer the Arab countries will not give to the Jews kicked out of their homes, all 850,000 of them).

Arafat demanded right of return.'

The Palestinians will NEVER get right of return.

So they will live with eternal misery, rather than their own state.'

Stupid.

[Violet_Crumble]

25. Actually, Israel trashed Gaza. It wasn't that long ago, but you must have ignored it happening...

And 97% if the West Bank wasn't offered, and I'd love to see where they asked for or Israel agreed to give reparations for all homes lost in what's now Israel...

Do you have anything in yr very small repertoire than posting one-liners displaying yr glee over some stupid notion you've got that the Palestinians will always live in misery and never have a state? Some attempt to actually think and not post soundbytes would be welcoming...

[Vegasaurus]

26. I'd love the Palestinians to have their own state

so they could stop milking off Israel and the rest of the world.

I'd love for them to be responsible for themselves, finally.

But they seem to choose the wrong path, every time.

Do you see them choosing the path of violence and lack of unity as a good thing?

[bemildred]

16. I just swore my cat in as ruler of the world.

We await the sworn fealty of lesser rulers.

[Alamuti Lotus]

19. I for one most joyously welcome the reign of your feline

Although I must confess, I voted for Kang..

[Violet_Crumble]

21. You voted? But there wasn't an election!

Bemildred's moggy doesn't need trifling things like elections to be sworn in as ruler of the world!