[Siberian Fox]

Abu Mazen (also known as Mahmoud Abbas) has offered his resignation today as Palestinian Prime Minister. So what? The Israelies wont talk to Arafat, but it is now up to Arafat whether or not to accept his resignation, so once again it is he who is centre stage. Without a man that Israel can talk to the peace process is dead in the water. On a side note, Israel was firing helicopter rockets at Gaza just hours after Mazen offered his resignation.

Palestinians: Abbas offers resignation

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas has submitted his resignation to President Yasser Arafat, who is now considering the move, Palestinian officials told CNN.

Abbas has been locked in a power struggle with Arafat since taking office four months ago.

Jibril Rajoub, Arafat's national security adviser, said Palestinian officials will discuss the matter over the next few days.

Earlier, a Palestinian official told CNN Arafat had accepted the resignation.

Rajoub and Palestinian Legislative Council member Saeb Erakat said Arafat plans to consult other Palestinian officials before he decides whether to accept the resignation or have Abbas or others form a new government.

Arafat was also expected to address the council, Erakat said. "How Arafat will deal with the resignation -- will he accept it, reject it, will he ask Abu Mazen to form a new Cabinet? These are the questions we need to be concentrating on now," the council member said.

If he resigned, Abbas -- also called Abu Mazen -- would play a caretaker role until a new prime minister is sworn in, Erakat told CNN Radio.

Israeli political sources told CNN that Israel will not deal with Arafat or anyone appointed on his behalf.

Abbas outlines reasons for resignation
In a statement, Abbas gave five reasons for his move, presented in a closed session before the Palestinian Legislative Council:

• "The fundamental problem is Israel's unwillingness to implement its road map commitments and to undertake any constructive measures.

• "The United States (and the international community) did not exert sufficient influence on Israel to implement its commitments in the road map to push the peace process forward or to end its military escalation;

• "Lack of support for the government's policies;

• "Harsh and dangerous domestic incitement against the government and the obstruction of its functions;

• "Unjustified accusations that the government and the prime minister had the motive of either having control over everything or nothing."

The announcement of Abbas' plans to quit came after 18 members of the Palestinian Legislative Council initiated a no-confidence motion for Abbas' government to take place within the next two weeks, council member Erakat said.

Under pressure from the international community to reform the Palestinian Authority, Arafat created the prime minister position in March and nominated Abbas, a veteran Palestine Liberation Organization leader.

Abbas accepted the position under the terms that he would not merely be a figurehead.

Abbas wanted control over security forces to help rein in militant groups such as the military wing of Hamas that carry out terrorist attacks against Israelis. He has said he would not raise arms against the groups, but instead would seek to end their attacks through discussions.

Arafat has not been willing to cede power over the security forces.

Originally published here: http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/09/ ... index.html

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Abbas was dead in the water before he was ever appointed. Arafat just continues to show his true colors at every turn. Does anyone really believe Arafat was going to sit idly by while Abbas rings in peace for the palestinians? After decades of bringing nothing but pain to his people? Wouldnt leave Arafat much of a legacy now would it? Arafat did everything in his power to make Abbas fail, from choking his powers to organizing anti-abbas protests.

[GandalfTheGrey]

Does anyone really believe Arafat was going to sit idly by while Abbas rings in peace for the palestinians? After decades of bringing nothing but pain to his people? Wouldnt leave Arafat much of a legacy now would it? Arafat did everything in his power to make Abbas fail, from choking his powers to organizing anti-abbas protests.

Do you seriously believe that the destiny of the Palestinian people is in the hands of Arafat, or any other Palestinian leader for that matter? In case you hadn't noticed, Palestinians are under military occupation. Arafat is a symbol of Palestinian defiance, but nothing more. In the current situation, no Palestinian has the ability to 'ring in peace'. In 2000, when Arafat rejected Barak's 'generous offer', Arafat in fact had only one choice. Like all Israeli proposals, it was totally unacceptable for a viable Palestinian state. No one in the world would have accepted Barak's proposal for a Palestinian state. Israel and Israel alone has the power to create peace. What about Palestinian terrorism? I hear you ask. To put it simply, no occupation, no brutality means no resistance, means no terrorism. Its like some school bully demanding that you don't fight back while you are lying on the ground with his foot pressing against your neck.

[ihavenoname]

An eye for an Eye and a tooth for a tooth. Guess who thought of it first?
A poll can bring about whatever results you want. In what ways was the Palestinian state un-viable? The settlers have as much a right to live in the West Bank and the Gaza strip as Arabs do to live in Israel.

To say the palestinians have no fault in the conflict is wrong. Why didnt they accept King Husseins offer for the West Bank before it belonged to Israel?

[GandalfTheGrey]

In what ways was the Palestinian state un-viable? The settlers have as much a right to live in the West Bank and the Gaza strip as Arabs do to live in Israel.

how was it unviable? Gee where do I start. For starters, it was segmented into three seperate enclaves, divided by sovereign Israeli territory. Secondly, the land would be crisscrossed by Israeli highways, which, you guessed it, would be exclusively accesible to Israeli citizens only. Thirdly, the Palestinians would have no air space. They would have no control over their own water supply, and would have significant areas still occupied by Israeli settlements. Tell me, which nation on earth would accept such a proposal for a state? The nature of the 'negotiations' (if you can call it that) at Camp David were humiliating for Arafat. Barak wouldn't even talk to him directly. What would happen was, an advisor would meet Arafat and give one of the proposals, and Arafat would have to say yes or no. No ifs, no buts, accept or reject. Barak stated clearly to the Israeli knesset, that the proposal would be the final settlement, and if Arafat accepted, then that would be the end of the negotiations, he would not be able to negotiate for more. So much for the blatant lie propogated by the US and Israeli governments that Camp David 2000 was merely a basis for negotiations. So, as you can see, Arafat had no choice but to reject.

Settlers rights?? My friend, you need to take a look at the fourth geneva convention, which clearly states the transfer of the population of the occupying power into the occupied territory is illegal. This stems in part from the programs the Nazis had in WWII, especially Poland where a few hundred thousand 'settlers' moved in, evicting thousands of Poles in the process. Settling the occupied territories is illegal and morally wrong, and thats that.

[/quote]