Abbas rejects temporary Mideast peace deal

[oberliner]

AMMAN (AFP) - Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas has rejected any temporary solution to the Middle East conflict, as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice continued a US push for regional peace with a stopoff in Jordan.

Rice flew into Amman and immediately went into talks with King Abdullah II at his residence before returning to Jerusalem to meet Monday with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Officials said she was due to discuss in Amman the US administration's new strategy for Iraq that has raised concern in Arab capitals, and ways of reviving the moribund Arab-Israeli peace process.

After earlier talks with Rice in the West Bank town of Ramallah, Abbas spoke of his refusal of "any temporary or transitional solutions, including a state with temporary borders, because we do not believe it to be a realistic choice that can be built upon".

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070114/wl_mideast_afp/usmideastdiplomacyrice_070114164356

[Tom Joad]

1. This "temporary State" is based on borders set by Israel by its annexation Wall,

erected to take valuable land from the Palestinians, and cutting them off from each other, from their crops, from health care, and so much more.

Rice expects the Palestinians to surrender to US/Israeli power, and accept their dictates. The Palestinians believe that the resolution should be based on international law, which means, among other things, Israel must give up its hold on the West Bank and Gaza (the latter still surrounded and imprisoned by Israeli military, by no means free of occupation).

The Palestinians know that this "temporary" arrangement will last at least as long as the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza has already. 40 years. Or maybe "temporary" like the pyramids.

Next June, the World Says No to Occupation. International law, not military might, should resolve the conflict in the Middle East.
http://www.endtheoccupation.org/article.php?id=1281

[oberliner]

2. How should the border be determined?

Do you think that the US should have a role in helping the sides negotiate a border that is mutually acceptable?

Do you think that Bill Clinton's diplomacy during his presidency was helpful?

Should a future Democratic US president give the same attention to the crisis that Clinton did or do you feel like it should be up to the Israelis and Palestinians to resolve this issue without US involvement?

[Tom Joad]

3. It must be worked out by Israel/Palestinians themselves with the help of the UN

There should be involvement of the United Nations and international community. The US has proven it cannot be "an honest broker", and should cease to support the Israeli project of colonialization and ethnic cleansing.

Clinton worked tirelessly to promote and defend interests of those who wanted to keep many Israeli settlements intact, a refusal of Palestinian right to return as guarenteed under international law, and should be commended for being such a hard worker. Let's not forget that during the Oslo process (the Clinton years), the Settlement building increased dramatically, and the settlers owe Clinton big time for that, as no one has kept as given Israel as much a free ride about that except W, who of course out does Clinton in so many ways.
http://www.jewishvoiceforpeace.org/publish/101conflict.shtml#2

The clinton family contribution to the Middle East continued of course with Hillary's tireless support for W's attack on Iraq (after years of deadly sanctions, also part of Bill's legacy), that only recently faded away (she must be finally lookin at the stark poll numbers).

Let's not forget Bill and Hillary's willingness to sup with one of the leading racists of the middle east, Avigdor Lieberman. Shows real class to sit at the table with the Middle East version of Le Pen.