The hope that turned false

Abbas follows Arafat?

What all this means after translation to plain English is that Abbas follows Arafat in being "a failed Palestinian leader" from Israeli prospective. This can be explained by 2 main factors:
-- Recent terrorist attack by Islamic Jihad (as well as Qassam attacks).
-- Political maneuvering between Sharon's Kadima and the Likud.

The farther is the pie in the sky of "2-state solution", the weaker is European position in the Arab world and the weaker are pro-Western Arab moderates. As for radicals, they get stronger on both sides.

All this perfectly fits with Khomeinist policies. In fact, they never recognized "2-state solution" in the first place! This is why Ahmadinejad systematically and persistently goes on with his anti-Israeli rhetoric. He simply does not want to deal with Europeans knowing all too well that they have nothing substantial to offer.

By provoking Israelis, Ahmadinejad follows N.Koreans in killing the unfouvarble for him diplomatic process. As for Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear installations, Iranian influence in Iraq is worth of N.Korean artillery targeting Seoul, it works as pretty good life insurance for Iran!

The only uncertainty factor in this situation is infinite incompetence of neocons who cannot calculate all these moves. So, they are going to learn the rules of the ME game the hard way.

Haaretz. Ze'ev Schiff. The hope that turned false

The election of Mahmoud Abbas (Abu Mazen) to the chairmanship of the Palestinian Authority after the death of Yasser Arafat was a breath of fresh air to anyone who expected new political moves between the Palestinians and Israel and negotiations without bloodshed. Abu Mazen is far from being a supporter of moderate Zionist ambitions, but he reached the conclusion that the Palestinian struggle for achieving independence cannot be conducted through terror. This was in opposition to many among the Palestinian and Fatah leadership such as Fatah's Kadura Farez, who presents himself in fluent Hebrew as a moderate but recently has argued in favor of the Palestinian right to use force (another word for terror) if they don't achieve their rights.

Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been justifiably criticized for his ongoing refusal to meet with Abu Mazen for substantive talks. But the more time passes and the suicide bombings as well as rocket fire of Qassams from Gaza following the disengagement continue, another situation is developing. At the same time, there's no sign that Abu Mazen is ready or able to take real steps against terror organizations like Islamic Jihad. He hasn't even begun collecting weapons as he promised in the road map.

So there's no other conclusion than that in effect there is no positive meaning to Abu Mazen's leadership. He's not contributing to freeing his people from the swamp in which they have sunk. His leadership does not contribute to peace, and weakens his supporters in Israel. Abu Mazen is wasting, or has wasted until now, the historic opportunity that befell him.

Israel must wait for another individual to head the Palestinians, a braver leader that might arise after the elections. And meanwhile, it must not be deterred from another unilateral move, which would ease its political and security situation.

Without doing so, Israel has little place from which to criticize Abbas, especially after blaming Arafat for similar reasons, saying all would be better once he was gone. Why doesn't Israel recognize that the continued brutality of the occupation is creating the circumstances that are being used to justify it?

And, fellow I/P posters, please don't go off on a tangent here. I'm not saying I condone terrorism by this statement. I am saying that without hope of the end of the settlements in the West Bank, like it or not, approve of it or not, this is what will continue to happen.

thats why "we dont see it"

Why doesn't Israel recognize that the continued brutality of the occupation is creating the circumstances that are being used to justify it?

....I am saying that without hope of the end of the settlements in the West Bank, like it or not, approve of it or not, this is what will continue to happen.

and so far events show that the attacks will continue even when there are no settlements.

if the settlements were the SOLE reason, then the wars of 48 and 67 and 73 would never have happened. Without taking those events into account..the thesis involving the "no settlements = peace" is simply not realistic.

classic examples being n. israel and gaza. Anybody who claim that all israel has to do is to retreat to agreed upon boundries would have to explain why rockets and mortors and other attacks continue on those borders....because i sure dont understand.

Although, of course, there are differences.

The threats against Iran have been continuous for the last several years - that was (most likely) a factor in Ahm-an-idjit's rise to power in the first place - and nothing of interest has actually been done. It's all been talk, and unimaginative talk at that. All the more reason for him to feel confident while prancing about on the stage and playing to his audience at home. The jingo feelings of Iran's public cannot help but be gratified by his tweaking of Western noses.

In the present circumstances, if I were Iran, I would worry far more when the threats stop. But it's hard to see - short of further Neocon blunders - what can realistically be done, as you point out..

Of course, there are lots of differences. The major one is that Israel instead of peaceful S.Korea is involved. Main thing in common - unsolvability. Any military strike means a disaster.