If anything, the portrait of Palestinian democracy is worse than last year. This week, Mahmoud Abbas began the eighth year of his four-year term of office, still unable to set foot in half his quasi-state, now in its fifth year in the hands of the terrorist group he promised to dismantle, with whom he is currently reconciling (for the third time).
He rules by decree, because there is no functioning legislature. He cancelled local elections in his own half-state again, ignoring the order of the Palestinian “High Court.” Both haves of the putative state are one-party police states. Last May, elections were promised for this May, in an effort to persuade the UN that Palestinians were ready for a state; the elections will not likely occur unless Fatah and Hamas can agree beforehand on who will win what. Abbas is periodically dragged to talk to Israel, but he lacks a mandate to make the concessions necessary for a state, much less the ability to implement them. He cannot make the minimal promise required for a two-state solution — that a Palestinian state will recognize a Jewish one.
In Statecraft, published in the first part of 2008, Dennis Ross described Abbas as someone who “acted as if avoiding decisions rather than making them was his objective” and whose strength was “not his decision-making instinct.” Later that year, Abbas received an offer of a state on land equivalent to the entire West Bank (after swaps) and Gaza, with a safe-passage corridor between them, and a capital in Jerusalem — and walked away. The memoirs of both George Bush and Condoleezza Rice make it clear his decision was a considered one.
When you get three offers of a state in less than ten years, and turn all three down (the modern equivalent of the “Three Nos”), the problem is deeper than what Abbas disingenuously describes as the “Long Overdue Palestinian State.” It does not relate to the specifics of the offers, or to an alleged deficiency in decision-making instincts. The problem is an inherent inability to recognize a Jewish state, or defensible borders, or an end-of-claims agreement — and the inherent instability of a society that still lacks even the minimal institutions necessary for a democratic state.
What service to humankind (including the Palestinians) can be done by formalizing this tyranny in a completely sovereign state? Can human dignity and respect for rights and freedoms be enhanced? Will people live in greater security, safe from attack and sudden death at the hands of terrorists? Will greater prosperity accrue to the Palestinians by giving Hamas and Fatah even greater power over their lives? n nThose are the unpleasant questions the world's statesmen avoid asking themselves in their haste to wash their hands of the "Palestinian problem."
Ed, do you believe that there ever was a palestinian people in all history?? I don't. If you can't prove that there was one, then why use the term "the Palestinians"??? n nRick, I know what the 3 Noes of Khartoum were. But I'm sure that many younger people don't know. May be you ought to inform them of just what the 3 Noes were. Otherwise many people won't get your full meaning.
Ed, do you believe that there ever was a palestinian people in all history?? I don't. If you can't prove that there was one, then why use the term "the Palestinians"??? n nI agree with Newt Gingrich that the "palestinian people" is an invented notion.
The "service to humankind" the Europeans and Obama believe they are making in pushing for a Palestinian state is the same as that sought by the other Arab states: the elimination of a Jewish sovereign. No one in their right mind believes Palestinian Muslims will ever accept coexistence with Jews on an equitable basis; thus a Palestinian state is a recipe for eternal war. n nOf course, such things cannot be spoken of publicly because they are far too gauche. n nAs the wicked witch of the west said, "these things must be done delicately".
Abbas is a better propagandist than he is a leader. His only background was as an assistant to Arafat, who was a terrorist. n nFayyad is loved by America, but hated by Hamas because he's loved by America. But Fayyad lacks the charisma for leadership. Erekat, the current negotiator, is the same negotiator whom Arafat used who refused any offer that Israel made. n nThere's no one to take over for Abbas when he steps down this Spring. If Fatah and Hamas unite, Fatah becomes Hamas. n nObama and Europe require nothing of the Palestinians. All blame is placed on Israel. We in America are the ones who need new leadership. Little, insignificant Palestine should never have been able to manipulate us and pull the world's strings for all these years.