P.A. President Abbas to be forced out of office

[webfusion]

PLC Speaker Aziz al-Dweik, who is currently in an Israeli prison, is being reported likely to be appointed the acting President of the Palestinian Authority, in Jan. 2010.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019584.html

Israel is expected to free the 40 Hamas Palestinian parliament members (including al-Dweik) held in Israeli prisons, as part of a deal to release captive Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. The legislators' release means that Hamas will once again have a majority (74 out of 132) in the Palestinian Legislative Council, and they are reportedly anxious to convene the PLC in order to legally oust Abu Mazen.

In this circumstance, as both Israeli PM Olmert and Palestinian Chairman Abbas are on "borrowed time" -- the chance of any deal seems more and more unlikely this year.

I cannot imagine Tzipi of Kadima even talking to Aziz of Hamas, unless that 'leopard changes his spots'.

[mrbaracuda]

So, what do you think webfusion? Are you going to get another coffin or this time a living Shalit? :(

[FireGarden]

Well, the Israeli leadership have already given up on Abbas:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/998836.html

At the end of the meal an argument erupted between the Jordanian envoy, Ali Ayed, and a well-known "dovish" attorney, who said Israel had no chance of reaching an agreement with the Palestinian Authority under Mahmoud Abbas' leadership. Barak supported his guest's hawkish stance.

[Peres] said Abbas had no support among his people, no power to carry out security agreements and that any agreement Israel and the PA made crumbled a day later due to the PA's weakness.

So why should the Palestinians keep him in power?

Hamas has already agreed to the 1967 borders.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976662.html

Hamas' political leader Khaled Meshal on Monday said Hamas would accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip along Israel's pre-1967 borders, and would grant Israel a 10-year hudna, or truce, as an implicit proof of recognition if Israel withdraws from those areas.

Meshal's comments were one of the clearest outlines Hamas has given for what it would do if Israel withdrew from the territories it captured in the 1967 Six Day War. He suggested Hamas would accept Israel's existence alongside a Palestinian state on the rest of the lands Israel has held since 1948.

Don't believe them? Call their bluff.

And funny to see Carter having to defend himself for meeting with Syrian and Hamas leaders. But what has Israel been doing of late? Indirect negotiations with both, including one leading to a ceasefire with Hamas.

[webfusion]

Cpl Shalit should be OK. Sick and tired of pitta and hummus and olives, but alive and well.

Here is a brief interview with Professor Aziz:
(in which he places the entire blame for lack of peace on Israel)
http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/palestine503/interviews_dweik.html

[webfusion]

FireGarden, what you and many others fail to realize is that Israel has no intention whatsoever of returning 100% back to the CeaseFire demarcations (1949 Armistice Lines).

The Israeli President today said as much:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1019575.html
Shimon Peres said on Tuesday that the difference between Israeli and Palestinian negotiating positions on the final borders of a Palestinian state was less than five percent.

I am not going to delve too deeply into the issue here, but the State of Israel has presented detailed maps to the Palestinians with the minor changes to the 1949 Lines that Israel will feel comfortable with.

Now, the question remains --- "What about the Haram al-Sharif Compound / Al-Aqsa ?"
That small hilltop area smack-dab in the center of Jerusalem is the main sticking point, IMO.

[FireGarden]

webfusion
I suggested, in a thread some time ago, that negotiations should begin by discussing the final status of Jerusalem. Some thought that was crazy, I don't remember who.

But what's the point of spending months discussing peace, then finding you still haven't addressed one the of the same damn problems which ruined previous attempts?

[webfusion]

webfusion
I suggested, in a thread some time ago, that negotiations should begin by discussing the final status of Jerusalem. Some thought that was crazy, I don't remember who.

But what's the point of spending months discussing peace, then finding you still haven't addressed one the of the same damn problems which ruined previous attempts?

That's exactly what Abbas is saying right now (he is indicating there are six outstanding key issues) ---
Resolve the refugee issue first. (We) aren't interested in half-solutions. The Palestinians must have a a practical right of return. -- Abbas' exact quote: "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1020448.html