"Palestinians will not resume peace talks with Israel unless it stops settlements" said Abbas in a press conference hold after meeting President Hosni Mubarak on Saturday.
Abbas: no peace talks before stopping Israel's settlements, www.chinaview.cn, 2009-05-30 20:26:33, Xinhua
This statement by Abbas is the statement of an opportunist, one who compromises on principles, morality for the sake of expediency, self-benefit. By saying that he will not resume peace talks with Israel unless it stops settlements is perfectly acceptable to Israel; they can continue to take Palestinian land and delay peace talks indefinitely or until they reach a more advantageous position and then stop settlements. This statement is also suitable for Abbas since it seems that he is being tough on Israel by refusing to bargain with them. But his "threat" is empty. There are no repercussions for Israel should they refuse to bargain. Meanwhile Palestinians keep losing their property. Consider this story. Robbers wish to steal your farm. First they take away 1/4 of the property and say they are willing to enter into negotiations. The farm owners say they will not enter into negotiations until the robber stops taking their land. Then the robbers take another 1/4 piece of the farm. Members of the farmer's family begin bombing the robbers who respond by saying that in self-defense they will bomb, kill, and take more of the farmer's land. A rift forms in the farmer's family: those who wish to defend their farm from the robbers and those who wish to enter into further peace negotiations with them.
Here is what Chomsky had to say about Israel's December 27, 2008 Gaza invasion: Znet: "The results are not surprising in the light of how the events were reported and interpreted by the media and the political class. The mantra is that Israel has the right to defend itself against rockets. Virtually no one pointed out that the issue is quite different: did Israel have a right to resort to violence in self-defense? No state has that right if there are peaceful alternatives. And in this case there surely were. A narrow alternative would have been for Israel to accept a ceasefire, as proposed by Hamas shortly before the invasion. In the past, Israel had accepted ceasefires formally, but never in reality, including the ceasefire in July 2008, observed by Hamas (Israel concedes that Hamas did not fire a single rocket) but not by Israel, which terminated it with a direct attack on November 4. A broader alternative would have been for Israel to stop its US-backed criminal activities in the occupied territories, both in Gaza and the West Bank, such as the near-complete economic strangulation of Gaza since January 2006. That is the way to stop the rocket firing. But matters like these are almost entirely off the agenda in mainstream discussion."
Abbas is a puppet for neo-fascist capitalist powers. If he were a genuine leader of the Palestinian people he would immediately hold a referendum in Palestine to see whom the people want to be their leader since his term has come to an end and Hamas was successful in the previous election. Abbas would never do this; he leads by diktat supported by neo-fascist capitalists.