G-Man

Somebody has to 'go first' for there to be reciprocity. To stop building new settlements requires Israel to do exactly NOTHING - why is this so hard for it to do? It would seem to be a very easy step for Israel to do - if the Palestinians do not then offer something back then Israel can say they are complying but the Palestinians are not - but quite simply this has not happened yet.

Also, the road map is not dependent upon reciprocity. Israel has failed to comply with its requirements and the Palestinians have failed to comply with their requirements. You mention the later consistently but fail to recognize the former.

Hamas is the government - a policy to ask a government to disarm is a non-starter. What is required is a change in the Hamas position re: Israel - such things are normally achieved through negotiations and discussions yet you criticize Abbas for doing this and argue that Israel should never do this.

The peace agreement used to be 'land for peace' but it now seems Israel wants the land before peace in my opinon. If they ever stop their settlement expansion programmes then I think that would be a good demonstration of their good faith and may bring more support for their position.

Tashah

That is why we also have your views G-Man.

Other than settlements, which Israeli actions are you referring to?

Mahmoud Abbas is the legal president of all Palestine. He was denied this authority when Hamas forcibly took total control of Gaza.

__________________

G-Man

I suppose, but I have no desire to falsely claim that the troubles are all attributable to one side. Anybody who has done even minimal research into the subject will discover that both sides are to blame - provided of course they allow themselves independent thought and are not religiously tied to a pre-determined outcome.

I'm not to sure what you would be refering to. I guess the practice of internment and the embargo on Gaza would be other issues but the ONLY real major topic in the problems is the land and who owns it. This is the crux of the matter - others have tried to turn this into some sort of religious conflict but the problems have always concerned the land. A real negotiation on borders, settlements and ownership is not possible whilst one sides continues to build on that which is being negotiated.

This seems strange - I will not proclaim to have an indepth knowledge of the working of the Palestinian leadership structure but to hold a democratic election but then refuse power to those who were elected would defeat the whole purpose of holding the election in the first place no? It doesn't seem like democracy to me.

Tashah

Winning an election does not correlate to sole power in the Palestinian system. Much like the Israeli system, the majority party has to share power with the minority parties in order to get anything done. Hamas won the majority of votes, but Fatah also garnered a considerable number.

Each party is then represented in high office and parliament by the vote ratio. According to this formula then, Hamas obtained the Prime Minister position (Haniyeh) and Fatah obtained the President position (Abbas). They each have different powers under the Palestinian system. Under this system, the President appoints Cabinet ministers and can also dissolve parliament and call for a new general election. The majority party in parliament must cooperate with the minority party(s) in order to obtain enough yes votes to pass proposed legislation.

With the Hamas coup in Gaza, Haniyeh and Hamas administer the Gaza enclave, and Abbas and Fatah consolidated their power in the West Bank. In simple terms then, the Palestinian administrative offices and parliament were fractured by force. For all practical purposes, Palestine is bifurcated.