Corrupt Leaders or Just the Way it is?

A couple of days ago I came across David Brumer's blog (on account of South Jerusalem) and assuming it may be just the right fix for me for another Israeli point of view, I took a peek into his post about Khaled Abu Toameh, who is an Israeli Arab journalist. It was very interesting and had many points that many Palestinians had already taken into account for the failures of an effective resistance movement against the occupation. (See Rashid Khalidi.) Brumer, who is a member of The Israel Project, was impressed with Toameh's conclusions that the "Palestinian people are the victims of corrupt leadership in the West Bank and now fanatical radical Islam in Gaza. It didn’t have to be this way." Toameh's status as an Israeli Arab who is residing in East Jerusalem is meant to immediately qualify him of a very non-partisan view, and I have to say that it is very hard to argue against it since this is one voice of a Palestinian, albeit one with an Israeli citizenship (which is second-rank if you are a non-Jew). Brumer is correct in highlighting that aspect of Toameh's, but that doesn't necessarily equate that this point of view is correct altogether because of his background, and I don't believe Brumer does that either.

It has been proven that the Fatah party led by Arafat was corrupt. It saw itself estranged from the fellaheen and decided that it was time to play the politics game and get with it. But we have grown accustomed to what power does to people (and politicians): it corrupts. The Palestinians are not immune to this and neither are any other party that vies for control of a nation-state or province or even some little piece of territory. Arafat aimed to get benefits from the biggest superpower, which incidently his successor is doing right now. I guess the main point being that Arafat was a rather weak entity and grappled for something that he could hold on to so he could have some power. MERIP described it as

"[T]he weakness of the PLO after the Gulf War... The PLO accepted this deeply flawed agreement with Israel because it was weak and had little diplomatic support in the Arab world. Both Islamist radicals and local leaders in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip challenged Arafat's leadership. Yet only Arafat had the prestige and national legitimacy to conclude a negotiated agreement with Israel."

The MERIP synopsis also included that "[T]he Oslo accords contained no mechanism to block these unilateral actions [in violation of the Accords] or Israel's violations of Palestinian human and civil rights in areas under its control." Arafat had no power and his power was only as a puppet of Israel's making. So much so that he was corrupt since he had no authority to rule over the masses. He had no power to stop settlements. He was even quite draconian in his handling of security since his was very discredited by the process itself by the Islamist factions of Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Joel Beinin quips that "Arafat's undemocratic practices are considered helpful in controlling opponents of the Oslo process." And could it have been a possibility that Arafat's harsh measures were somehow related to his desire to curbed Palestinian terrorism directed against Israel? As many ordinary Palestinians could attest, signing a peace treaty with Israel did not bring forth any serious discussion about East Jerusalem, refugees or even water rights. Simply put, "Signed agreements were open to endless reinterpretation, always by Israel or by the United States" as iterated by Ali Abunimah.

Toameh regrets that Arafat was unable to build any concrete services during his time and that's why the Palestinians felt the need to back Abbas since he represented some kind of change. I don't believe they elected Abbas because he was capable of bringing more stability, it was just a small changing of the guard. Not long after, we saw how paperthin Abbas' support was as Hamas swept into power, which Toameh agrees that "that any Palestinian child on the street could have told you Hamas would win the elections in January of 2006."

Of course, there's nothing generally wrong with what Toameh's says. In fact, Arafat was only guilty of what every fucking party seems to be guilty of. There is no respite from criticism from the constituents; and not to say that there is no legitimate criticism involved. Here in Ontario the economy is doing very poorly and is on the verge of becoming a "Have-Not Province" qualifying it for Federal subsidies. The McGuinty government has been accused of corruption over and over, stealing taxpayer money. And to paraphrase Jeremiah Haber of The Magnes Zionist:

"[I]f you believe that the Palestinians have been oppressed by their leaders -- I don't -- my question to you will be, so what?

It doesn't make a damn difference.

Because, you see, what the Americans, Israelis, and Palestinians, have in common is that their governments were elected in fair elections. The Palestinian elections were monitored by international observers. In each case, the people should have gotten what they deserved. If they voted the bums in, that's their headache."

Now Toameh does believe it was the Palestinian's headache to bear but I believe that the analogy is rather faulty. Neither Israel or the US is under constant pressure of an occupation. Neither Israel nor the US is under a sanctions regime or a boycott (effectively to undercut its main economy and fuel and electricity). Neither Israel nor the US has their taxes under survellience by an occupied power. While Haber does believe that accountability has to be acknowledged, and it does, the Palestinians have decided that enough was enough and they removed Fatah from power. But Haber notes again,

"the elections results overturned by outside interference. After supporting elections -- elections, I may add, that to a large extent, actually threw the corrupt bums out -- Israel arrested the elected officials that it did not like and imposed a siege on Gaza -- not because it was actually being attacked, but because the Palestinians had elected a group viewed by the US and Israel (and much of Europe), to be a terrorist organization."

Even Toameh recognises this:

"So a year later, when Hamas challenged Fatah’s power, Palestinians said to themselves, let’s give these guys a chance."

But Toameh omits the fact that this result was overturned. And Haber again lucidly points out that

"if you justify Israel's actions in the interest of Israeli security (what about Palestinian security?), you have automatically declared Palestinians territories to be, if not under occupation, than under the thumb of Israel. And therefore you have made the Israelis responsible for the governance of thsoe territories."

And that is outright true. Because of the issue of security, it should only be limited to within the recognised borders of the '67 line but Israel brought it upon itself to control the entirety of the territories, hence they are responsible for those territories. While they have no direct bearing on the attitudes and policies of the PA, the fact that it is still under the umbrella of an occupation makes autonomy a complete impossibility.

Toameh does not allude to this at all and that's where I find the problem. "And again the Palestinian people emerged as the big losers." No one could predict what would have happened if Hamas were able to govern unfettered or the Fatah was not provoked into an attempted coup to remove Hamas from power. Toameh even admits that "Hamas did prove themselves untarnished by corruption"; what could their achievements have been if they did not see an attempt on their lives? He even insists that Hamas has not been able to alleviate the advancement of Palestinian rights, statehood or improve their lives. Perhaps Toameh may have mentioned it in the lecture but Brumer makes no mention of the fact that the embargo that has Gaza starving to death. As it so happens, Israel is been urged to undo this very policy to "avert a humanitarian disaster". A recent poll had Hamas' popularity rising because of the said embargo. And Toameh is meant to conclude that this is (totally) Hamas' fault because they are unable to make life easier for Palestinians?

This would not be so odious if we had not read this reasoning over and over. The Palestinians are solely to blame for their plight because of the leaders they chose. It is the same rhetoric we hear from the powers-that-be that dictate who gets to rule whom. How many people actually know that Marwan Barghouti is possibly the biggest voice that the Palestinians have and he is prevented from ever leaving his prison, let alone run a party or provide talks between the two warring parties. As a matter of fact, we hear the same thing from the US about Iraq: the place is a mess because the Iraqis don't know how to govern and that's why the West has to do it for them. They're just backward, alien and don't know a goddam thing about democracy. All they know is clanism.

I cannot fully fault Brumer and Toameh though; he did declare that

"Nothing is likely to change with the current PA leadership. Abbas is a weak and ineffective leader who cannot leave Ramallah without the permission of an Israeli army officer, let alone rally his own people. He has never visited a refugee camp or ordinary Palestinian village. He's traipsed around Europe and the Middle East, but has done nothing to advance his people’s cause. And the more the Palestinians see America and Israel supporting Abbas, the more he is seen as a puppet and collaborator in their eyes. The West Bank is effectively ruled by gangs, thugs, and rogue militias, Mafia style, says Khaled. If it weren’t for the IDF, Hamas would topple Fatah in a heartbeat, just like they did in Gaza, with barely a struggle."

That is exactly why they are funneling funds into Abbas's pocket. They do not want Hamas to rule as they are the bad guys here. You cannot let the bad guys win: that makes for bad lessons in future. This is a precedent that is not make to see reality. It is typified by what Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy stated in an interview:

"There are conditions [for Hamas to be legitimised]: renounce violence, recognize Israel, and be willing to engage in diplomacy.

[Carter's visit] has told Hamas leaders that perhaps in Washington there are important people who are reconsidering, who are lowering the bar that will let them through the door without them having to pay what they need to pay to get the credibility of engagement with the United States."

What Satloff is incorrect at is that these conditions were met by the PLO before they were spoken to. False. It has been noted in many circles that had these conditions been demanded from the IRA or the ANC then we would still be seeing terrorism and violence in both countries respectively, and perhaps an even harsher treatment to rule over them. We should also take note of Robert Pape's theory that suicide bombers peters out when you negotiate with the resisters and pay attention to their grievances. They're not "animals" who take innocent lives gratuitously: they want to rid their land of foreign combat forces.I guess I am a little too harsh on Toameh but I figured that he needed to properly put all of this into context. It is difficult enough to govern a state, province or a nation without an outside power overlooking your every step and suggesting that this is bad for its security and that you must eliminate every portion of resistance movements that are hostile to the occupier's existence. Think about it: the US is using very repressive measures at any hint of terrorism, torturing them and sending them over to Guatanamo. Ironically, Arafat used the same methods on Hamas. Now Hamas has the tables turned and they doing what Fatah did to them back in the Oslo years when they discredited the accord to a submission to Israel. Were they wrong? Are they wrong now?

What is also missing is that Hamas has tried time and time again to accomodate Israel, urged ceasefires and attempts to give over Shilat for prisoners and even a hudna. All of this has been rebuffed by Israel. You could speculate over Hamas' desire to really make lives easier for Gazans but I didn't see Israel blowing up the wall at Rafah, nor do I see Israel sending out feelers to Hamas. They even demonised an ex-President who did such a measure. This only helps Hamas in the end and only hurts Israel. The longer they hold out, the more Hamas will search for players who will listen to them. That means Iran, Syria and even non-state entities (yes, maybe even Al-Qaeda). Ultimately, this helps Israel's rightliners, as this gives them the proper pretext to fully invade Gaza and depose of Hamas, something that a beefed up Fatah could not do. As we have it, Khaled Meshal has been on record that he will agree on the status outlined from the previous PA agreements and to commit to the borders of the 67 Green Line. Gershom Gorenberg had a very perceptive outlook on Meshal and Hamas and one that should be repeated here:

"Let me be clear: Meshaal is still stating a considerably more hardline position than that of Fatah. This isn’t an offer on which any Israeli leader could just sign. Meshaal’s stated conditions for two states falls far short of the Clinton parameters or the Geneva accords. On the other hand, pay attention: The leader of Hamas is saying that the Charter has no practical relevance. He really wishes Israel would vanish, but that’s not his political program. He’d rather take a couple pills against nausea, and accept reality."

This is possibly the most realistic analysis of the situation: Hamas has to continue its rhetoric and may still hope for the "liberation" of historic Palestine, but most of its statesmen see this as a folly and one that will only deflect them into obscurity. They know that they are under fire for results and they somewhat have to accommodate their enemy and give them de facto recognition. Isn't that just as good for now? Why do more lives have to be at risk here? Jimmy Carter did state that "as long as Hamas is not part of the solution, they are part of the problem".

Nothing will absolve the Palestinian leaders of corruption and failure to unify. But under the conditions of occupation and the scope of outside powers constantly at play with your governance, it is remarkably difficult to do the right thing by your constituents when you are living the easy life or a diplomat or an official. You live in decent dwellings while the poor farmers are being removed from their land and Hebron residents are being terrorised. The Palestinian official is aware of this but they are not under this pressure every day. Scratch that, only those that are not under threat of being imprisoned or liquidated, is not under pressure. Those who speak out are possibly languishing in a prison cell already.

But no amount of Palestinian corruption can totally absolve an occupation that has epitomised a dearth of autonomy for the Palestinians. Toameh's narrative is free of the usual vituperation but coming from his focus it is naturally a little surprising, but it really should not be. Every Palestinian is well aware of the failings of their leadership but they are also very aware that this is a vacant leadership that is propped up by the big powers to rule over them. They know they're corrupted; but do you also know that they are occupied? It is on its forty-first year; how long has Palestinian corruption been around? And here we are still scathing over the corruption while the occupation makes scant relevance. No siree.

There can really be no clear ratio on which is more to blame. The constant neglect to even mention that the Palestinians are under conditions that no other government is under is criminal and disingenuous. What should not be forgotten is that the lifelong effects of being brutalised, tortured, harrassed, displaced, distorted, ignored, and flatly called every demeaning name in the English, Hebrew, Arabic, French, German and any other language has on ordinary Palestinians who only see how bad the occupier can be.

Where were you when they blew up the wall?

We all remember the scene when the Berlin Wall was finally torn down, marking a historic moment in the twentieth century when time stood still and we all could recall the tiniest detail of where we were and what we were doing. Another date that encapsulates the same recollection is 9/11, where we felt surrealism at its most perverse when we witnessed smoking towers tumble, turning into ashes. Thursday January 24th, 2008, is set to be another landmark on the calender and with good reason. Nothing is a more gripping image than a massive wall being broken down, and earlier this morning (or late last night my time) in Rafah, the barrier was blown up with a few blasts, enabling Gazans the freedom that they have been aching for since June. Here's coverage of the extraordinary incident by Al-Jazeera English:



Only two days ago I wrote about the embarrassing situation that has the international community blaming the Palestinians about the latest Israeli decision to put Gaza in a complete blackout. Amongst the agony of Gazans who have been subject to total closures and at times, the perfect laboratory to try out new weapons, we have the EU, Israel and now even a Presidential candidate bending over backward to appease Israel and its feared supporters. As the images of Palestinians having a brief taste of freedom, Barack Obama is showing just what kind of steel he is made of by declaring to Ambassador Khalilzad that Israel had no option but to hermetically seal Gaza. The letter is making its rounds in the blogosphere, querying as to what Obama can accomplish with such a cowardly line. The answer: votes.

The joyous scenes is following closely with Martin Luther King Day, evoking his much cited "I Have a Dream" speech in where he bellows that "We are free at last." Yes, Palestinians finally have broken the prison that has caged them in since Hamas took control of the Strip. Streams of thousands piled into Egyptian Rafah, and stocked up on what they could get their hands on; cheese, concrete, iron, oil. diesel, cigarettes, foam mattresses, cleaning materials, flour, glass plates, mats, blankets; nothing was too scarce for these Gazans. Rafah had not seen anything like it before, as people came in droves, as well as donkey and carts, in order to taste some form of autonomy. Hosni Mubarak stated that they were "hungry" as he ordered his troops to help Gazans load up on supplies and usher them back to the crossing. That piece of altruism is shocking considering Egypt has done plenty to allocate the suffering of Gazans on Hamas, as well as collaborate with the occupier that this is the best thing to do for their security. Cairo has been seeing protests about their role in the closure for months, and it seems that with the prisonbreak, it would have been too embarrassing in front of a live connected media to deny these Palestinians some sort of relief. Mubarak has problems already; a confrontation with ordinary Palestinians just days after human rights organisations expressing deep concern over their plight would have been a wedge in his presidency.

And how ironic is it that Israel, the US and the West is blaming Hamas for the wreckage wreaked on Gaza, saying it's Hamas' fault that Palestinians are living with no electricity, no sewage control, no water, etc. that Hamas is the one responsible for setting them free of Israel's strangehold. Amira Hass reports:

"Hamas operatives had been sawing away the foundations of the wall between Egyptian and Palestinian Rafah for a few months to make it easier to blow it up when the time came, a source close to the Popular Resistance Committees (PRC) in Rafah told Haaretz Wednesday.

A central Hamas operative partially confirmed the report, although he told Haaretz it was PRC operatives who had prepared to breach the wall, while Hamas policemen did not interfere. In any case, Hamas has for months been discussing the need to take the initiative in ending the siege of Gaza.

Apparently, after four days of hermetic closure, following months of siege, the planners believed the political and social conditions were ripe to bring down the iron wall that Israel had put up."

What we have here now is a problem: how can the world continue to blame the suffering on Hamas when it is they who seem to be the only one concerned about the Palestinians? How can we continue to accuse them of selfishness, cutting their own electricity for "propaganda purposes" and isolate them when they blow up a wall that has encased Gazans to their worst nightmare? How can we stop Gazans from responding positively to Hamas when they do so many things that help them?

That is the dilemma now that is posed for the West. Hamas has done what no other body was able to do: give relief to Palestinians, give them access to aid and supplies, and most importantly, give them (a brief sense of) freedom. This latest event has bodly defined what Palestinians have been saying all along: the world is indifferent to their suffering. All the lip service about two-states, refugees, and freedom has led them to a closed area that is one of the most densely populated in the world. The world looks on by, talks the good talk while doing nothing to stop Israeli atrocities that claim more and more lives. We sit in horror as Olmert overtly claims that his policy is a collective punishment, and yet the international community does nothing about it. In fact, it does worse than nothing: it praises the oppressor for dealing with it swiftly! Now that is hubris.

The suffocation of the Gazans as a strategy by the West to weaken Hamas culminated at the Rafah border. With stunning clarity, the explosions that broke down the barrier were the metaphor that highlighted the failure of the international consensus. Only uncanny timing can explain Kathleen Christison's article on the illegitimacy of the "international consensus" (IC) as a broker in the Israel-Palestine conflict appearing on the same date that the wall fell, focusing on how the IC has failed in even accounting for a Palestinian commentary on peace talks and negotiations. Christison is scathing on the purposes of the IC:

"The international community does not initiate policies; it merely parrots and goes along with the positions promoted by the centers of international power, in this case the U.S. and Israel.

There is in fact no international consensus supporting two states for Palestine-Israel. Those who cite UN Security Council Resolution 242 as the basis...did not even mention Palestinians except as "the refugee problem" and clearly did not put forth a proposal for two states in Palestine-Israel."

The advocacy of a one-state solution is consistently criticised by two-staters because of an agreement by the IC that two-states is what the world can accept. But the IC has always been dormant on Palestinian demands; hence the IC is only a lapdog for the superpowers who dictate policy of the conflict, aka the US and Israel since the fall of the Soviet Union.

What has the IC done for Gaza? Nothing but jargon and rhetoric. The UN is inept and Europe only wants to placate the US and Israel. Canada is silent, China is indifferent as they have nothing to gain, Russia is ineffective and Australia is mute on the topic. Six months went by and Gaza was a massive prison with the IDF exercising impugnity on helpless Palestinians. They turned off the lights, bombs flew and Gazans were starved; the IC sat on their hands and gave Israel a pat on the back for stealthly dealing with the irritating Qassams. Have we forgotten that Qassams are still being launched despite the sanctions and blockades? Or the narrative that Qassam fire was preceded by IDF-inflicted deaths? Where are the results that would justify this collective punishment that is a violation of the Geneva Accords?

Without a doubt the Rafah breach is a bitter rebuke to not only the IC but also on Mahmoud Abbas and his Fatah party. While Abu Mazen propped up his phony government to play the game of peacetalk with Olmert and Bush, he candidately embraced the IC's dismissal of anything Gaza-related. Annapolis is the perfect paradigm of this: constructed and supervised by the two heavyweights directing orders to the beaten. Gaza was not even mentioned in Annapolis. It is a rude awakening to Abu Mazen as he struggles to gain any hint of success through his process of engagement (or collusion?) while Hamas took a big stride for Palestinian resistance. Israel maintains its construction in the West Bank and violence has increased during the Annapolis timeframe: this is what the Palestinians have gained when playing peace with the occupier and its most ardent supporter (and exporter of arms and aid). This is what they have struggled for? More housing for Israelis? More land theft? More grievances and lost trees and crops?

Now Abbas faces a test that he has to match Hamas' resolve and message that the IC, US and Israel do not have the Palestinians' best interest at heart. The Palestinians have taken it upon themselves to break free of the entrapments and impasses that has afflicted them for so long. They were not meant to take matters in their own hands; the elite is meant to resolve this issue for them. But you could forgive them into thinking that the world has forgotten about them. Jeff Halper testifies of the Palestinian temperment of not giving in:

"Not only have the Palestinians experienced the dehumanization all oppressed and colonized peoples experience, not only have they been made into the embodiment of the rich and powerful's greatest fear, evil "terrorists" who may tear down their privileged "civilization," but they have been turned into guinea pigs...

And yet the Palestinian people -- and in particular those who remain sumud, steadfast, in Palestine -- continue not only to resist but to surprise and confound its would-be Israeli master at every turn. Despite unlimited control, a complete monopoly over the use of force, utter callousness and a vaunted Shin Beit, Israel's military intelligence, Palestinians vote as they want, resist, carry on their daily lives with dignity -- and blow huge holes in the walls and policies constructed in order to imprison and defeat them."

Certainly the fight is not over. Egypt will close the border, Israel will remain its tight squeeze on Hamas, and the world will try to isolate them again. But the piercing of the bubble might shake a few people to realise that Gazans are not living normal lives and that Israel is not being a benevolent occupier. Annapolis is on thin ice as of this moment and Hamas may have made the West take them seriously. There is plenty of resistance against the other wall that demarcates the West Bank into swiss cheese. They stand up to their bullies every day demanding justice. The world has been shamed by the Palestinians: Will they take this notice of despair and respond this time?

Beyond any doubt

Stumbling through the Israeli press, I can across this little doosie by Moshe Elad on the Yedioth newspaper, the most popular paper in Israel. In Elad's mind, the assassination attempt on Ehud Olmert re-emphasised his doubt that Abbas is not the "true representative of the Palestinian people." That much should have been obvious to anyone with a remote interest in Middle East politics, considering Abbas' Fatah not only lost an election, but was booted out of Gaza. It is no comfort either that his "emergency government" is totally illegal under Palestinian law, but Fatah is losing its tenuous hold on their safety net the West Bank. Yet Elad had a hope that Abbas had some sort of authority over the Palestinians, even though many in his own party were deeply distressed at Fatah's attempt to oust Hamas and coddle with the colonials, Israel and the US.

Elad insists that the trio of Abbas, Fayyad and Ekrat are responsible, since they are "so weak and has such feeble control over [their] own organization" and this latest plot reaffirms that "Fatah has not changed at all its good old strategy, which views Israel as the bitter enemy."

Fayyad has denied any links, as well as the Al-Aqsa Brigade. Palestinian Authority General Intelligence Tawfiz Al-Tirawi said "that what Israel depicted as an assassination attempt was actually only talk and an exchange of ideas between two Palestinians on attacking Olmert's convoy." Another report has Fayyad stating that the suspects were released for "lack of evidence" (and then rearrested them). It's difficult to decipher, considering the source of "Israeli Intelligence", but even if it is the truth that there was an attempt to take Olmert's life, it really should not be so surprising.

Or perhaps the disgruntled Palestinians had enough of what is going on and took a page out of Israel's book of political liquidations. Understandably, this is a subject that is conveniently missing in Elad's piece: the fact that Israel is a nation that still views political assassinations as valid to their foreign policy. Here it is in plain writing according to B'Tselem:

"Assassinations have been part of Israel’s security policy for many years. Israel is the only democratic country which regards such measures as a legitimate course of action. This policy is patently illegal, according to both Israeli and international law."

Israel continue with fervour their march to destroy as many Hamas members is possible as well as other Palestinians seen as a danger. And yet Elad maintains that it is the Palestinians whose strategy hasn't changed one bit.

Much to Elad's insistence, Fatah's strategy has certainly changed tenfold. Times are definitely different when Fatah is seen as the Washington and Tel Aviv's puplit instead of a group that hijacked planes and took the fight to Israel by sabotage. Abbas is seen more as a collaborator than Arafat did, despite the latter closely resembling Abbas today in his later stages. The armed wing of Fatah has a mind of its own too, and a guy like Abbas could not keep them in check. Let us remember that the Palestinians are the ones who are forced to give up something to show "moderation" and not the Israelis. In fact, the latest peace proposal doesn't seem to deviate from the norm, only with legitimacy from Abbas this time around instead of rebuffing an offer that no Palestinian could accept. Here's a little insight thanks to Tony Karon:

"The Palestinians have very little leverage over Israel, whose military power ranks it among the world’s top five armies, and whose advanced economy and way of life is not substantially impeded by the conflict with the Palestinians. Palestinian suicide bombers managed to disrupt Israeli life for a brief period, and the Kassam rockets fired wildly into Israel from Gaza have made life hell for the residents of a marginal Israeli town in the Negev desert. But even then, by and large, on the current terms of conflict, the Palestinians are unable to muster a strategic threat to Israel. The corollary, of course, is that despite its increasingly vicious collective punishments and its ongoing repression, Israel has not managed to bend the Palestinians to their will."

So they continue to resist in any form at their dispersal, whether it be stone-throwing, Qassam rockets, or even the momentary assassination attempt. This is a desperate time, with the West Bank inching closer to Israel's total control and the permanent "bantustanisation" of the Palestinians [PDF], they remain adamant that what is on offer is not acceptable and they want to act out in ways that show that it is NOT the way to peace if "negotiating" actually meant anything to the Palestinians anymore. Israel still has the high card, and they have not relented in their aggression and annexation. To the Palestinians the question is, negotiating for what? They only get the same outcome all the time.

While Elad has it perfectly correct that Abbas is weak, it is because of Israel's policy of refusing to deal with Hamas that they contrived up a "good guy" to act in the theatre of "negotiations". And now he has the temerity to announce for his removal because of an attempt on Olmert's life, which seems futile anyway because he seems to have little support nowadays and is reliant on pathetic sideshows with his other leading actor Abbas to implement a historic peacetalk between the two sides. In his mind, "Fatah would have won the next elections by an overwhelming majority because only a major terror attack is the key to political success across the territories, rather than an agreement with Israel."

Wrong again. Fatah continued their agreement with Israel and that led them here in their complete futility. What the lesson should be is that revulsion of Israel would win with the common Palestinian who has seen that agreement with Israel leads to hollow power coupled with corruption at the expense of the peasantry that held Palestinian identity through all its turmoil. What I don't get is why Elad sees all of this as such a shock, since Abbas did not have any legitimacy at all. He seems to feel perturbed that such an act was concocted in the first place, despite the fact that it was foiled by Palestinian authorities. Only lately has Rabin's killer come out in the news again; Israel is not immune to this feeling.

"It’s a waste of time," states Elad. It definitely is, but only because Israel refuses to deal with the rightful authority of the Palestinian people: Hamas. Abbas only has the power that Israel gives him, he cannot do much as a quisling of Israel's making. Complaining about his ineffectualism seems rather mute since he is a puppet made in USA.