The PA is the reason the Goldstone report is not going to the Security Council and will be postponed until March?? At first glance, perhaps you'd call it treason or shooting yourself in the foot or whatever, but when you think who is sitting on the Security Council, maybe it's just admitting the inevitable defeat early on.
In this account I found it odd that the decision to delay was attributed to Abbas and Abbas was launching an internal investigation to see why his government ruled to delay the vote. ??? Was he not there? Is he not a part of this government? Someone made the decision without consulting Fayyad or PLO leadership and Abbas apparently doesn't know who made this decision or why? An investigation of this sort seems rather silly when you are in the situation of those in Occupied Palestine. American pressure was mentioned, and I'll buy it, but this is nuts.
Needless to say, I have to find another source.
This one quotes Arab leaders saying this is a missed opportunity and Abbas should step down. I agree that it was a bit of a missed opportunity, but given the US veto, which is a given, maybe I can see why he gave in. I guess when the choices are- stick to you guns and stand up for your rights even though you are sure to be shot down and called uncooperative and shunned --or-- concede and delay the vote and be called slightly less uncooperative and re-enter unending "peace talks" sponsored by the best friend of your Occupier- it would be hard to choose. Maybe it wouldn't matter.
The Guardian makes it a bit clearer:
The Palestinian reversal came after "intense diplomacy" by Washington, which told the Palestinians that going ahead with the vote would harm efforts to restart peace talks with the Israelis, according to diplomats quoted by news agencies.
They did help draft a motion in support of the report, but didn't go forward with it due to this threat and the fact that if it were voted down, it would just go away.
I still can't help thinking this was a missed opportunity, though...
I'd like to see the leadership stand up for the people now and then. But where would that get them? They'd be accused by the US and Israel of doing a disservice to their people. Being uncompromising on the right of return, the small amount of land left by the 67 borders, Jerusalem, holy sites, and the dismantling of settlements- all of the things supposedly guaranteed them under international law- would get them called Arafat and accused of missing an opportunity for peace. Yet, if they compromise on any of these things, the people suffer and rights are forfeited. Sure, they might get some fleeting influence from the US, but that would be revoked as soon as they stopped conceding their rights back to Israel.
Funny how Palestinians must put off action on reports that detail Israeli war crimes against them, they must meet despite a refusal by Israel to follow the law and dismantle (even freeze) settlements to be considered remotely eligible to be a partner for peace. Israel can boycott elected Palestinian leaders, have leaders that are terrorists, and break laws left and right and still be considered the eternal victim and ultimate partner for peace.