I don’t mean to keep picking on Abbas, he seems like a decent fellow, but my point is that in a democracy you can’t just make up the rules as you’d like them to be. You are elected for a pre-determined period of time, and when that time is up, so is your time in office, unless you happened to win re-election, that’s the way democracies work (just imagine if in October 2008 George Bush decided because of the economic crisis he should just stay in office ‘til, say, the end of 2009).
Abbas’ term ended on January 9, but he continues to act in the role of President of the Palestinian Territories. Abbas didn’t hold elections as scheduled, and is dragging his feet on holding them in the future, because he knows he’ll lose and Hamas will almost surely win. Hamas won legislative elections in Gaza in 2007 because the Palestinians were fed up with Abbas and years of negotiations with Israel that failed to make their lives better. The Palestinians opinion of Abbas has only gone downhill since then.
Clinton’s visit to the region has been disappointing so far. She isn’t helping the situation for the Palestinians long-term by supporting Abbas’ sit-in in the president’s office. Really what’s needed is an emergency unity government in Palestine, something we (the US) oppose since we don’t want to have anything to do with Hamas – a fine moral stand to take, but one that ignores the facts on the ground, that Hamas is today the de facto leadership of Palestine and is in control of Gaza, which just got $5 billion in pledges of international humanitarian and reconstruction aid.
Clinton did again voice her (and America’s) support for an independent state of Palestine, a position that is going to bring us into conflict with the incoming Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu. He opposes the two-state solution, backing only some limited ‘self-rule’ for Palestine; the far-right/orthodox parties that will join him in a coalition government don’t even want that much.
And apparently there is talk building within Israel for military strikes against Iran. The Jerusalem Post ran a piece today on the topic of military action, citing at length a new report from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (based in DC) that recommends, among other things, providing Israel with more US-made advanced weaponry in case the Iranians improve their anti-aircraft defenses. Of course the problem with Israel striking Iran is that they don’t have the capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear program outright and that Iran’s response would be to turn to the hard-line elements within their government, redouble their nuclear efforts, and launch a wave of terror attacks across the Middle East (with our forces in Iraq being a prime target).
The situation in Israel/Palestine needs bold, new leadership; so far I’m not convinced we’re up for the challenge.
No comments:
Post a Comment