Aljazeera’s Leaks Reveal Sham ‘Peace Process,’ Israeli Stonewalling

The Qatar satellite channel Aljazeera has gotten hold of some 1600 documents from the Palestine Authority regarding negotiations with Israel, which cast the Israelis, the Americans and the Fatah faction of Palestinians in the worst possible light. The leaked documents were shared exclusively with The Guardian newspaper.

The documents could well destroy the Palestine Liberation Organization, a coalition of parties that includes Fatah, which is led by Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. Among the politicians who comes off the worst in these documents is Saeb Erekat. The Palestinian Authority is revealed as feeble as a kitten. Like a a spurned suitor, Erekat kept offering the Israelis more and more, and they kept rejecting his overtures.

The documents have frank admissions. Tzipi Livni said:

“Israel takes more land [so] that the Palestinian state will be impossible . . . the Israel policy is to take more and more land day after day and that at the end of the day we’ll say that is impossible, we already have the land and we cannot create the state”. She conceded that it had been “the policy of the government for a really long time”.

Although she said that in 2007 the Olmert government was not following this policy, she admitted some parties were. And, of course, in February 2009, parties came to power that would not so much as give Palestinians a glass of water.

Saeb Erekat,an old-time Fatah operative, is in trouble because he is revealed to have offered the Israelis much of East Jerusalem. He is also said to have been convinced by the Israelis that the future Palestinian state would not have an army, air force or navy (i.e. it would lack sovereignty over its own territory and would only be an ersatz state). Even then, the Israelis kept demanding more and more.

Erekat’s enemies, the Hamas movement based mainly in Gaza, are using the revelations to paint him as a traitor to the Palestinian and indeed the Muslim cause. I saw him on Aljazeera, where he was very defensive. London-based journalist Abdel Bari Atwan let him have it with both barrels.

Erekat and other Fatah leaders are accusing Aljazeera of forging the documents and of attempting to scuttle the Palestine Authorities’ plan to go to the United Nations to get an international resolution against ever-expanding Israeli colonies.

But even PA loyalists like attorney Diana Buttu have called for Erekat’s resignation in the wake of the revelations.

The Fatah-dominated Palestine Authority has long been regarded as corrupt and authoritarian by many Palestinians, not to mention wusses when it came to dealing with Israel. These documents demonstrate that its leaders were willing to give away just about anything to have a state they could preside over, even something that was only a state in name.

I’m not sure that Fatah can survive being discredited to this extent. Nor, likely, can the American farce of a ‘peace process’ or a ‘two-state solution.’ (The state Erekat was trying to get would have no sovereignty, as he admitted, which means it would not be a state and the entire end goal is a chimera).

As for the Americans, Condi Rice is said to have told the Palestinians (with regard to their mass expulsion in 1948 and their loss of statehood) that lots of peoples have had bad things happen to them. But ‘lots of peoples’ don’t have nearly 5 million stateless people currently. Stateless people have no real rights. They are not citizens. The Nazis prepared for their move against the Jews by first stripping them of German citizenship. That gave denaturalizing people a bad name. There are only a few million stateless people in the world now, and the biggest group of them is the Palestinians. (No, illegal aliens and frustrated sub-nationalists are not like the stateless. The illegals have a state, to which they are sometimes deported. The sub-nationalists may not like the citizenship they hold, but they do have passports, property rights that a judge will back up, etc. The Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and Lebanon, plus about 130,000 in Jordan, have bupkus).

Shares 0

41 Responses

  1. […] what they’re calling it over at the Guardian. Here’s Juan Cole’s take: The Qatar satellite channel Aljazeera has gotten hold of some 1600 documents from the Palestine […]

  2. Looks like Israel has been using all sides of the Palestinian movements besides using Fatah as these papers show so far and we may be suprised at the other actors also.

    In the Middle East the Islamic fundamentalist organisations like the Hizbullah, Hamas and others were set up by the Israeli intelligence agency Mossad in the 1960s and ’70s . They were created to destabilise the PLO and subvert the left radicalisation within the Palestinian movement.

    Hamas, meaning “zeal” or “fervour” in Arabic, is an acronym for Harakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya, or Islamic Resistance Movement. The group was founded as an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt.

    Richard Sale, a UPI Correspondent, wrote an illuminating article on the origin of Hamas in which he pointed out that, “According to several current and former U.S. intelligence officials, beginning in the late 1970s, Tel Aviv gave direct and indirect financial aid to Hamas over a period of years.”

    Israel “aided Hamas directly ‑ the Israelis wanted to use it as a counterbalance to the PLO (Palestinian Liberation Organization),” said Tony Cordesman, Middle East analyst for the Center for Strategic Studies.

    Israel’s support for Hamas “was a direct attempt to divide and dilute support for a strong, secular PLO by using a competing religious alternative,” said a former senior CIA official.

    According to documents United Press International obtained from the Israel-based Institute for Counter Terrorism, Hamas evolved from cells of the Muslim Brotherhood, founded in Egypt in 1928. Islamic movements in Israel and Palestine were “weak and dormant” until after the 1967 Six Day War and Hamas was legally registered in Israel in 1978 by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the movement’s spiritual leader, as an Islamic Association with the name of Al-Mujamma al Islami, which widened its base of supporters and sympathizers through religious propaganda and social work and according to U.S. administration officials, funds for the movement came from the oil-producing states and directly and indirectly from Israel itself.

    “The thinking on the part of some of the right-wing Israeli establishment was that Hamas and the others, if they gained control, would refuse to have any part of the peace process and would torpedo any agreements put in place,” said a U.S. government official who asked not to be named. “Israel would still be the only democracy in the region for the United States to deal with,” he said.

    They have done exactly this and have held the people of Gaza hostage and the Palestinian movement as a whole for Israel to this day.

    What is required is a social revolution that will sweep away both the reactionary Arab regimes and the monstrous regime of Israeli imperialism.

    • If Hamas has refused to engage in the peace process, how do we explain their very consistent offers of a truce, and of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders?

    • Wow! I understand that Professor Cole would not have published your comment if it didn’t have any credit, but could you please send the supporting documents like the one about the Mossad setting up Hisballah and Hamas so we can read them. Thanks.

      • Hamas received Israeli support in the 1980s. Also in 1980s Israel had good relations with Shiites of southern Lebanon who did not like the PLO.

      • The evidence for the Mossad setting up Hizbollah and Hamas is so well known I think it’s linked from Wikipedia. It came out literally decades ago.

      • Well, I think he’s overstating his point or that you’re misinterpreting it.

        A good place to start on this is
        link to

        There (and in the above comment, if you read it for context) you’ll see that Israel didn’t “set up” Hamas. What happened was that Israel conquered Gaza in 1967 and didn’t keep up the harsh suppression of Islamic movements there that Egypt had had in place. Yes, they exchanged one conqueror for another, but under the new one, non-violent Islamic movements were allowed more freedom to preach and to grow. That benign neglect, however, ened when Hamas turned to violence.

        So, what’s the moral? That scheming Israel created a terrorist organization in order to undermine the secular and legitimate expression of Palestinian hope for the future? Or is it that Israel helped throw off the shackles of Egytian tyranny and that former victims viciously turned on their benefactor?

        Seriously, the answer to me is “none of the above”. The truth is, there was a war in 1967. Israel won. That gave them control over a people who didn’t want them in control any more than it wanted the Egyptians in control. As occupier (and later colonizer), they were unwilling or unable to use the tools of supression that their predecessors used. And in this new environment of (somewhat improved freedom), they played a strategy known as “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

        They didn’t CREATE Hamas, and any claim otherwise makes no more sense then to say that the US created Stalin, since we armed him against Hitler. But they didn’t go out of the way to keep them from harassing their most pressing enemy, the PLO, either.

  3. Norman Finkelstein said Hezbollah represents the hope of the Palestinians. It’s not hard to why.

    As horrible as it is to be pushed off your land, the Palestinians just aren’t organized enough (a covert Israeli plan?) to stand up against this treatment.

    Are Jordan and other countries friendly to the refugees?

  4. I liked buskus and wusses! Apart from this, is the origin of these papers relatively sure? If so, it makes clear, that the only solution could be (apart from another war or other dramatic happenings) the international one, through the assembly of UN, either a special one or a regular and the convincing of Obama, maybe at the end of his presidency, to abstain in the security council. The Israeli will make mistake after mistake, but their “Holocaust industry” works well. Especially here in Germany, where a political correctness is defended with fure, in particula by young lefts.

    • I think Al Jazeera probably does pretty decent research before they publish anything.

    • I think that racist, anti-Semitic denial and revision of the Holocaust is absolutely disgusting. As a Muslim who believes that God has commanded us to reject pride, jingoistic nationalism, and racism, I stand firmly against such filth.

      Just because Israeli politicians are imperialistic tyrants doesn’t mean that Jewish people have never suffered at the hands of the rest of us.

  5. I’m not sure that Fatah can survive being discredited to this extent.

    Their overthrow and dispersal cannot come fast enough for the sake of the Palestinian people.

    Tragically a relatively peaceful uprising like the one in Tunisia has little chance of working because even if Fatah’s armed goons opt against firing on their siblings and children then Israel’s occupation forces have demonstrated time and again that they’re willing to do their bloody business as messily as opportunity permits.

    For all his professed sympathy for Palestinian peoples’ generations’ long suffering Mr Obama has demonstrated definitively that no matter who is in the White House they’ll work hard to make sure no Israeli soldier or politician is ever punished for atrocities committed against a Palestinian, or likely any type of arab.

  6. It takes a special kind of evil person to torture an oppressed class for decades, all the while assuming the role of victim and blaming the oppressed for the problem. I offer this as one definition of Zionism.

    It takes a special kind of fool to not have noticed over the past two decades that whenever Israel wants to stall the appearance of a peace process, they have the IDF or the settlers commit some atrocity upon Palestinians, who are essentially unarmed hostages, in the name of self defense and wait for the inevitable reaction which they will call ‘terrorism’ and which Fox News and its imitators, NBC, CBS and ABC, will pick up and trumpet. I define this type as fool as an American voter.

    Now we have proof that Israel has never considered peace, but only intended to do what they appeared to do, which was to stall the process, steal all the land, kill whoever opposed them and blame their victims. What should we expect from Israel in the future? We can expect them to label these documents a “blood libel” (special thanks to Sarah Palin for cheapening that slur), commit some atrocity to prove how bloodthirtsy their opponents are, cry out how they are the victims of worldwide anti-semitism, and quietly start another settlement. In other words, we can expect them to stall, kill, blame and steal.

    Expect Fox news to raise irrelevant issues or perhaps there will be the mysterious disappearance of a pretty, white, blond teenager and Fox will completely ignore this story.

    I think we can also expect the US, as exemplified by Condi Rice, to become completely irrelevant unless, as Seymour Hersh almost joked, we finally get an angry black man as president just when we need one.

    But, we won’t.

    • It takes a special kind of evil person to torture an oppressed class for decades, all the while assuming the role of victim and blaming the oppressed for the problem. I offer this as one definition of Zionism.

      Not really, it’s standard fare for bigots unfortunately.

      I’ve known a number of Sinhalese and Sri Lankan Tamils, without exception they have been warm, friendly and generous to me on both sides. Interestingly not one of my Sinhalese friends or acquaintances have ever exhibited the slightest hint of empathy for the Tamils. They’ve spoken to me about wonderfully they’ve treated “our Tamils” and how ungrateful they are and about how wonderful it is that the civil war is over and the government has crushed the terrorists.

      That’s merely anecdotal, and it’s not intended to depict the Sinhalese as a horrid ethnic stereotype. It’s simply my hope that we can understand that for all the uniqueness of the various situations there are common underlying problems which at some point have to be addressed.

      For centuries the Jews and Gypsies of Europe were brutalised and their (un)Christian tormentors would lay the blame solely at the feet of their victims for not assimilating enough, or for discriminating in each others favour against their Christian neighbours and so on.

      Such claims are bigoted nonsense now, and generally always have been.

      • Adam, what you described of “wonderful treatment” and “ungratefulness” smacks of white American supremacist beliefs. You’re spot on about racists.

  7. While I disagree with the idea that the Palestinians shouldn’t be allowed to have a military (Jordan and Egypt have long-standing peace treaties with Israel, and they have militaries), saying that a de-militerized Palestine won’t be a state at all is like saying Costa Rica, which also has no military, isn’t a state.

    And, no, the fact that Costa Rica chose this outside of a treaty obligation with another country while Palestine would be doing it within the confines of one, while a major difference, is not a a defining one, unless you see Weimar Germany as also “not a state”.

    A Palestinian state lacking a military will still benefit its people far more than the current situation. And friends of peace would do well not to pre-reject reasonable solutions for the stateless situation of the Palestinians that they deplore.

    • Costa Rica does have a military now — a large number of US troops, immune to local law and able to “go anywhere” to “fight drugs.” link to

      I wonder when people are going to get it — that the ordinary folks, who just want to live in relative peace and quiet, raise their families, work on their communities, maybe do some business, are well and truly screwed by the whole Great Game thing in all its manifestations.

      I’m not sure whether it’s more accurate to say “Humanity HAS an aggressive, metastatic cancer,” or “Humanity IS an aggressive, metastatic cancer.” Maj. Gen Smedley Butler on how it works: “War is a racket.” link to

      Good luck to people of good will who try to swim against that torrent of shite…

    • And, no, the fact that Costa Rica chose this outside of a treaty obligation with another country while Palestine would be doing it within the confines of one, while a major difference, is not a a defining one, unless you see Weimar Germany as also “not a state”.

      The Weimar republic had a military, albeit with strict restrictions like: No more than 100,000 men and they all had to be volunteers rather than conscripts, no submarines, tanks or air craft and, in addition to that, the Rhineland would be demilitarised for 15 years and occupied by the victors in the preceding conflict.

      A more telling similarity between Weimar Germany and Israel’s conditions on creation of an imaginary Palestinian state is the imposed weakness and vulnerability inflicted on the Germans, and the pretense that all responsibility for their catastrophic collapse was their own and nobody elses. This vulnerability allowed the French to seize the Ruhr in 1923 when they felt it served their interests and the Germans were powerless to resist.

      That is a particularly important similarity between the two cases because Israel has shown a consistent disregard for international borders and has repeatedly breached the borders they share with Lebanon and Syria for years. Sometimes with distinctly violent intent, for example their bombing of an alleged nuclear site in Syria during 2007.

      Inflicting weakness on a new Palestinian state would be to make them vulnerable to their Israeli persecutors in a more formal and internationally acceptable way. That is not a reasonable solution, that is a recipe for increasing brutality.

  8. Fatah has long been accused, by Palestinians, of corruption. Thus the (comparatively recent) electoral victory of Hamas. These revelations merely show what corrupt politicians may be forced to do in order to keep the goodies-from-Israel-to-themselves coming.

    Perhaps they rationalized that the proposed giveaways would never materialize because [1] the ratifying plebecite would reject such dreadful terms and [2] in any case, Israel would never accept EVEN these abject peace proposals. Perhaps, that is, it was all smoke and mirrors, shadow puppetry.

    However, Israel’s strategy (never a secret, mind, but never so clearly stated, either) is now manifest: no peace, no 2SS.

    The time has come (and the way has been made clear, the underbrush removed) for the international community to speak roughly to their little child and beat it when it sneezes. Israel has sneezed. A UNSC resolution (the first of a graduated series of increasing puissance, I hope) is ready for passage.

    Obama offered to veto unpleasant UNSC votes, and Israel refused his offer. OK. time for UNSC to get serious.

    • Obama offered to veto ‘unpleasant’ UNSC votes as part of a deal …Israel refused the offer since it was nothing the US doesn’t already do for nix.

  9. Neither AIPAC nor J Street have made any statement yet (it’s noon EST on Monday as I post this) regarding the devastatingly embarassing (for Israel) leaks. The Guardian’s pick-up of Aljazeerah’s coverage is extensive and ground-breaking. As with the Wikileaks cables, we see once again the perfidy of the Bush administration when it came to not backing its own Middle East peace process which, sadly for both Israel and the Palestinians, hasn’t changed much in the Obama administration.

    When will The White House finally tell Israel enough is enough, and tell the Palestinian negotiators to stop trying to appease a bully who repeatedly goes back on promises it makes?

  10. “The state Erekat was trying to get would have no sovereignty, as he admitted, which means it would not be a state and the entire end goal is a chimera…”

    Well then, I can give credit to Erekat for at least recognizing this, because this is all the Palestinians were ever going to get.

    So if the ‘two state solution’ is continued, then with and without the Palestinian ‘authorities’ Israeli policymakers and their settler surrogates will take every last square foot and drop of water and grove or anything else in the West Bank that they could possibly desire.

    They will leave the broken, scattered dry husks to the Palestinians, who will stumble through the matrix of walls and roads and the like which has separated them into tiny little chambers.

    And of course, only Israel or an Israeli proxy will make sure that Palestinians have no control of any borders, of shipping, or airspace.

    Gaza, I guess, will either be allowed to continue to rot, or blown up every now & then.

    And if such a “statehood” were declared, the ‘leadership’ of the Palestinians, Israel, and US would congratulate themselves for ending the conflict.

    With luck, maybe this release of papers will change the Palestinian leadership for the better, but I don’t quite see how it could be much better for the statehood situation.

    Hopefully I’m just a cynic.

  11. Anybody else smell Dahlan’s hand in this leak? With the increasing deligitimation of the PA, his marginalization, and his former access, I can see means and motive for him to seek revenge against his old allies by spilling the beans on them. And if he plays his cards right, one can imagine him coming in from the cold to act as one who could revitalize the PLO? I doubt however that he could pull it off since he’s as corrupt as the rest of the leadership and this is well known to the Palestinians.

  12. What the PA offered Israel is not very different from the ‘conventional’ one-state solution. The lack of the right to vote in the PA’s offer–it necessarily has to be absent in order to maintain the fiction of having arrived at a two-state solution despite the lack of sovereignty that effectively ensures continued occupation (PA is offering occupation without representation)–is not such a distinguishing or significant factor when one examines the state of affairs that is likely to emerge after a ‘conventional’ one-state solution is achieved: political and socioeconomic gridlock and unavoidable civil rights and socioeconomic rights struggles due to the economic and geographic stranglehold the former Zionists, elite and commoners, will necessarily have for a few generations at least due to the expropriation of Palestinian land and other forms of unjust enrichment which will be protected by the former Zionist-friendly ‘democratic’ processes and legal and economic institutions that are almost certainly not going to be changed significantly under the conventional one-state solution. These processes and institutions will likely produce a new Palestinian elite that will share the benefits of governing with much of the former Zionist elite. The appearance of having a meaningful right to vote is all the Palestinians are being offered, unless something is done about the disadvantages and obstacles they and many future generations will face due to the enormous past illegal expropriation, concentration of wealth, and legal and social institutions that will safeguard the Zionist unjust enrichment. The conventional one-state solution is not much better than what the PA or Avigdor Lieberman are offering. What has happened in South Africa and what is happening in Belgium is not very encouraging. I believe that last year Nelson Mandela expressed misgivings about the deal that he worked out and he and certainly others expressed misgiving about whether he had been adequately prepared to reach one.

    Whether one wants a one-state solution or a two-state one, one should follow the program described in “An Olive Branch with Thorns” or one almost identical to it. Before one can have a one-state solution one needs to first achieve a two-state solution at least according to the 1967 boundaries, but preferably mostly in accordance with UN Resolution 181. To achieve an equitable one-state solution one first has to get the Zionists to give up what they have taken through aggression, despite their laughter-inducing and silly baseless assertions to the contrary, and to the greatest extent possible vindicate in accordance with the overwhelmingly widely accepted interpretations of international law the violated rights of the Palestinian victims, including the unmitigated right of return and just compensation.

    What Condo Rice thinks or the principles one is certain she might espouse to justify not providing the widely accepted remedy for ‘bad things that happen to people’ are irrelevant considerations under international law as understood by almost all legitimate, objective thinkers. Juan Cole not only pointed out above the real, tangible, and enormous harm done to the Palestinians and that has spanned more than half a century and is ongoing and will affect additional generations until remedied, but also brought up an interesting historical parallel, the Nazi practice of denaturalizing Jews and their efforts to transfer Jews to other countries that preceded their genocidal acts. Many legal highly respected international law scholars including law professor, Francis Boyle, have argued that Israel is guilty of genocide against the Palestinians. The ethnic cleansing and the deliberate and unwitting denaturalization are to some degree the predicates of genocide. In the words of Mahmoud Darwish (I believe he is the original source of the following thought), the Israelis and Zionists did something even worse than making the Palestinian their slave, they made him the slave of others.

    The Palestinians need not only a new leadership, but also a negotiating team and supporting units which do not include anyone who has played a significant role in the failures of the past and failed to make revelations that are equivalent to those being made now. It certainly cannot include individuals who have left the PA or related institutions and are now working for parties that have been part of the problem. Stephen Walt recently argued that not only anyone who has played a role in the peace process while working for the US government is ineligible to provide, now or in the future, their services to resolve this dispute, but he has also argued that peope who worked for ‘conceptually’-related stakeholders including the American Task Force for Palestine and many pro-Zionist organizations should also be excluded. If what professor Walt prescribes is good for the US government, I cannot help thinking that the prescription for excluding past failed actors and thinkers must also be the minimum or floor for what is good for the Palestinians. What would make one a past failed actor and thinker needs to be defined now. Certainly, any reasonable definition should also disqualify anyone who has advocated even anodyne conceptions of a one-state solution, much less specious ones. Present and former high- and low-level PA ‘loyalists’ should certainly be disqualified.

    On a side note, the resolution opposing Israeli settlements tabled at the UN is most probably not such a good idea if it only includes past US positions on the matter that are most probably not congruent with widely accepted international law principles and if it recommends only a freeze on settlement construction rather than their immediate and unconditional dismantling. The Palestinians and the rest of the world should not be validating US positions that deviate from widely accepted interpretations of international law or fail to take advantage of the opportunity to reaffirm that the the state of affairs in the occupied territories is an ongoing violation that needs to be remedied unconditionally and immediately. Fortunately or unfortunately, Israel cannot make any convincing argument for its continued occupation that is based on security or a state of war considerations. And fortunately, the Palestinians and others can show that Israel is violating Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention despite its and its supporters’ baseless assertions to the contrary: “The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.” The US State Department has considered and cannot avoid considering Israel as an occupying power, or more accurately, a “belligerent occupant.” And boy has Israel been belligerent directly (and indirectly by advocating others fight at least one war on its behalf and promoting a general hostile environment of almost incessant violence and bloodshed for the most specious of (superficially plausible, but actually wrong) reasons)!

    I apologize for the length of the comment.

    • Mr.Albrett:

      Apology accepted regarding length of your thoughtful, literate comments :-) Consider more paragraphs!

      Also, congrats on not hiding behind a user name.

      Professor Cole:

      One of the points that appears to be missing in articles about the Palestinian/Israeli situation is a discussion of the impact of this continuing problem on disaffected multitudes throughout the Middle-East and indeed the world.
      Many folks in my admitedly limited circle of acquintences seem to regard the conflict as some obscure, inconsequential issue with limited effect on world politics with the truth being that it serves as a continuing, and by many accounts, effective “recruitment poster” . (BTW, I clearly need to consider moving on to a new circle :-).

    • Adam Albrett says:
      “What has happened in South Africa and what is happening in Belgium is not very encouraging.”

      Thanks for the long comment.

      I know what King Leopold has done in Belgian Congo during his reign of terror, but I do not know what Belgians are doing at present time. Would you please be kind enough to write about it or provide a link so I know what they are holding in their sleeve at present?

  13. The two state solution was never a viable option. It is simply time to end the Apartheid in Israel. Democracy and equal rights for all inhabitants of Israel and the occupied territories is the only peaceful solution possible. Most Israelis know this but they and their government can’t get beyond the rhetoric and posturing of the past. We will see within a few short years whether the Israelis can save themselves from themselves.

  14. From Al Jaazeera
    Former Israeli Minister Discusses the Palestine Papers
    In the largest leak in the history of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Al Jazeera has obtained 1676 classified documents. The documents are derived from detail talks between the Israeli government, the Palestinian Authority, and the US. link to

  15. I can not imagine how these leaks can not hurt the PA in the very short-term. They should also blow out of the water any sympathy many internationally might have for Israel. It seems crazy that Israel could not find common ground with such ridiculous terms. It also makes clear that the “neutrality” of both Obama and George W are both a joke.

    I can’t imagine how I could possibly reach many of my fellow Jewish relatives on these issues if these disclosures don’t change their perspective. Thanks!

  16. Professor Cole once again tells it like it is. Hopefully Fatah and the whole corrupt cabale that have done so much injustice to the palestinian cause will be relegated to the dustbin of history…I caught a glimpse of Erakat on Al Jazeera..the man just has no shame…..

  17. Erekat, in “negotiating style”, is the Obama of the Palestinian Authority. Fatah is the Democrats.

    That makes Israel’s government the Republicans.

    Sigh. It’s pretty accurate, actually, fanatical racist religious nuts both.

    Not that any of this matters, the area will be rendered uninhabitable by global warming in 50 years anyway, according to the current “business as usual” scenarios. Unless we all stop burning coal as soon as possible.

Comments are closed.