Fatah officials won't attend Geneva Accord ceremony

[Gimel]

Four prominent Palestinians who negotiated a
symbolic Mideast peace agreement canceled their
participation in a launching ceremony Monday in
Switzerland this week after Yasser Arafat refused
to offer written support and shots were fired at a
negotiator's home, Palestinian officials said
Sunday.

In a meeting overnight, the Palestinian leader turned
down a request by two of the officials, Kadoura Fares, a
Cabinet minister, and lawmaker Mohammed Horani, to
give them a letter supporting the accords, the officials
said on condition of anonymity.

The other two officials who refused to go were
Minister of Prisoner Affairs Hisham Abdel Razek
and lawmaker Khatem Abdel Khader.

The decision to pull out of the ceremony - along
with a protest in the Gaza Strip - raised
doubts about the Palestinian public's support
for the document.
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/366748.html

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Very disturbing

They would just go to Switzerland as a way of flipping off the extemists, if no other reason.

[Gimel]

19. A late report

This reverses Arafat's earlier position, apparently, or according to the news sources:

<snip>

Palestinian Authority minister Kadoura Fares
announced Sunday afternoon that Fatah officials
who had signed the Geneva Accord would depart for
the peace plan's launching ceremony in Geneva,
scheduled to take place on Monday. Earlier in the
day, Fatah officials said that they would not
depart for the ceremony until Fatah institutions,
namely the party's central committee, formally
announce acceptance of the peace plan.
<snip>

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/366748.html

[drdon326]

20. The "weasel" will change his mind again...

just watch.

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Thank you

[pistoff democrat]

2. This is mind-blowing!

They wanted this until it became a reality...sound familiar?

[MikeGalos]

3. Once again the peace process

is getting its usual support in the PA with small arms fire.

Guess a treaty that gives the Palestinians virtually everything they've ever asked for except the elimination of Israel itself is just not quite enough.

[pistoff democrat]

4. Don't be

that way just because it's the truth. :crazy:

[rini]

5. I never really expected anything else

n/t

[Darranar]

9. This was certainly a possible situation in my mind...

btu I thought there was a possibility of Arafat agreeing to it, not because he wants peace but because he knows the agreement won't go anywhere.

Not that it really matters, though, since Sharon is not going to support it.

[Gimel]

23. The opposition supports it

That in effect leaves it a question for the voters.

Arafat has wavered, and finally sent delagates, posibly because he knows that it won't go anywhere under this Israeli administration.

[Darranar]

27. That's my point...

though I think, now that he's changed his mind, that he's doing it for propaganda purposes.

[drdon326]

6. Maybe ....

he's holding out for money....

That $ 3,000,000,000 just isnt enough.

[pistoff democrat]

12. Money just doesn't go as far nowadays!

:hi:

:kick:

[MikeGalos]

16. Well

Keeping your family living in luxury in Paris is expensive.

[Darranar]

7. And, of course...

good old Sharon will be there. He wants peace so dearly, doesn't he?

[bluesoul]

8. Man of peace

hey...

[rini]

10. takes two sweetiepie

[Darranar]

11. That's my point.

[rini]

13. so why not blow a rasberry

to the Palestinians too?

[Darranar]

17. Because the topic...

of the thread is the Palestinian wrong-doings.

Silence in this case was agreement.

[MikeGalos]

14. When the people

think that there is no hope for peace they tend to elect hawkish conservatives. If you want Israel to start electing the Labor party again, push Arafat to the table. After all, he doesn't have to worry about election, he can always just have a few shots fired at opponents he doesn't like.

[Darranar]

15. It works the other way, too.

[pistoff democrat]

18. What does that mean?

I agree it would be a good thing to give Israelis enough hope and security to feel able to vote in a more progressive PM; but, it's a lot to expect when your friends and relatives keep not returning home from bus trips or cafes...

[Jack Rabbit]

21. Clearly he means that your formula works on all parties involved

In all his years as a Likud Party minister and leader, General Sharon has shown nothing but hostility to any peace process. Moreoever, any Likud Party leader will be saddled with the problem of how one negotiates in good faith with the Palestinians while regarding the West Bank and Gaza as an "integral part of Israel," to use Mr. Begin's words.

It is a perfectly defensible thesis, and one to which I hold, that the current leadership of neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are interested in doing what needs to be done to resolve the conflict.

Both Sharon and Arafat are beholdend to the most intrsigent element of their respective nations. It is no surprise that the Geneva Accord, which is probably the best hope for peace yet negotiated between an Israeli and a Palestinian, is a maverick document negotiated by those out of power. It is no surprise that Sharon denounces the document and some of his allies in the Knesset call for Mr. Beilin to be tried for treason. And it is no surprise that Arafat will not support the agreemetn, that the extremists among the Palestinians rail against it and send gunfire into the homes of those who negotiated it.

The extremists need to be marginalized. Neither Arafat nor Sharon are willing to invest the political capital to that end.

[MikeGalos]

22. Of course

one key difference is that Sharon's political opponents run against him in the next general election. Arafat's political opponents get to run from small arms fire.

Guess who's more likely to moderate his views to fight political oppostion?

[Darranar]

24. Arafat is there because no one can oppose him...

he is not very well liked by either the extremist terrorists nor the general populace themselves, except as a figure of Palestinian nationalism.

The central reason he is where he is is that no moderate leader has ever managed to get concessions from Israel, which would make them seem something more then a collaborator with the "occupying Zionist entity".

The fact that no Israeli moderate has been able to become Prime Minister is very highly due to the killing of innocent civilians by terrorists, and so the cycle goes on.

No one has yet been able to emerge from it.

[MikeGalos]

25. Gee

You don't think any of the Israeli PM's were moderates? I'm pretty sure Rabin would have disagreed with you. In fact, I'm pretty sure virtually all of the Labor Party PMs would disagree with you. In fact, most of the Israeli PMs would disagree with you.

Perhaps you're sense of history only goes back a couple of years...

[Darranar]

26. NO Israeli PM has shown a real willingness to do what needs to be...

done, which is halting settlement growth and dismantling settlements.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Darranar]

30. That's not true...

The first settlements were in 1967, but that's really nitpicking. To be fair, I'll modify the date to 1975, around the time that settlement building actually became a considerable thing. There have been 28 years since 1975 and 55 years since the creation of the state of Israel.

[Aidoneus]

32. that's a lie

Not even counting the 1950 laws, right after the June'67 war and around the time before/after Karameh the next year, the immediate Jordan valley area on the western bank was emptied of Palestinians, and colonization of the area began almost immediately (with a similar situation in occupied Golan and Sinai, with thousands more driven out of their homes and replaced by new colonists). Prior to that, there was comperable activities elsewhere before moving into these areas.

Your own apparent lack of understanding would be amusing, if I didn't know that it was willful and deliberately denied in a similar fashion that Winston Churchill or David Irving would also do so.

[tinnypriv]

35. LMAO

What book did you read that in? :D

[Aidoneus]

33. the moderate "force, might, beatings" Rabin?

The "Break their bones" guy or "Operation Accountability" (300,000 IDPs, dozens dead and hundreds wounded within days) Rabin? Moderate? Funny definitions.. Keeping within just 2-3 decades, Labour PMs have traditionally had the policies projectioning outward of the Likudists/etc (not counting domestic economics and social issues), but with a coating of hypocrisy and lies on the outside in the ad blitzes that history conveniently sticks to.

[Aidoneus]

31. that doesn't make sense

wasn't Tanzim one of the first backers of the plan? (back before there was something concrete, I believe they were distributing pamphlets in the camps to semi-favourable response)

[Darranar]

34. The story's been updated.

[tinnypriv]

36. "Palestinian public support"

According to the latest poll, Palestinian support for the principles of the accord is greater than that of Israelis.

In addition, the one article from the Israeli press I checked on that specifically said the poll was credible because it was done face-to-face in the territories.

Of course, you have to be extremely careful when reading polls, but drawing the conclusion that there are doubts "raised" by these demonstrations and actions is hardly convincing given these facts. Even more so when the various Israeli demos and actions (specific rejection by the government, book burning etc) are not mentioned.

Also, I think that context is especially necessary since a comparision between Palestinian social and governmental support for Geneva would likely easily compare to if not surpass that of the Israeli side (not to speak of the US government reaction - i.e. virtual silence and hardly concealed contempt in some quarters).

[Aidoneus]

37. what are the other latest figures now?

The last I saw from the Israeli side was something like 31%/38%/20% support/oppose/undecided, higher support from the Palestinians but those were from an earlier poll.

a newer breakdown/analysis of the Israeli side,
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/spages/366801.html

[tinnypriv]

40. That poll is certainly interesting

However I think it has to be taken in conjuction with this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=124&topic_id=33663

Shows majority support on both sides. Ma'ariv says the interviews were face-to-face in Israel and the occupied territories and hence "more reliable".

However, the questions did not mention the Temple Mount or other details, nor did they mention Geneva by name. I think this is a better way of evaluating however, because it cuts through whatever propaganda both sides have received on the topic.

For example, given the level of denunciation in Israel (and the lack of approval for Beilin), Geneva is synonymous (or at the very least associated with to some extent) labels such as "treacherous", "unprecendented compromise" etc. Naturally this sort of thing is going to skew any poll trying to establish what level of support there is for the underlying principles of the accord.

[Jack Rabbit]

38. Related thread

This is currently in Breaking News, although it may come down here later.

The LBN thread is about the opposite side of the coin, namely, the Sharon government's manuveres against the Accord.

It is diffcult for me to speak of one side's manuvering against the Accord and not the other's. The Geneva Accord is the result of a maverick process by those who had grown impatient with their respective leaders' inability and even unwillingness to make peace. It will go down in history as a revolt of reasonable men.

[bluesoul]

39. Exactly!

As alternatives to Sharon and Arafat!