On "Polishing Palestinian Men Of" Peace

Yesterday I commented on Stuart Littlewood's piece: Hamas, don’t blow this chance


I wrote:


"I claim Hamas has Siezed the "right moment" and the "golden opportunity" to:

• drive the last nail in the Coffen of Oslo option, and the occupation sub-contractors in Ramala,
• remind brainwashed Palestinians that Peace with Israeli elected men of Peace is a mirage, that Only Resistance in all its forms is the only way to get rights. Resistance forced barak to leave Lebanon without conditions, and forced Sharon to leave Gaza without conditions.
• remind palestinian Idiots that Hamas, in participation in last election, was not looking to replace Fateh at the negociation table, was looking to prevent liguidation of the Palestinian cause.

Unfortionatly, the Zionist controlled Meadia and Zionist controlled politicians, shall not allow others, the brainwashes outside the Holy Land, the Majority, to sympathize and know the truth,"


Read the rest Here


Stuart Littlewood called Hamas to "even consider setting up alternative, parallel peace talks to ridicule the US-Israel-Fatah axis and to produce an alternative, parallel final status solution based on justice… just for fun, or maybe as a serious counterpoint.

Hamas would also do well to frame their case in a manner that allows others, outside the Holy Land, to sympathize and feel persuaded that it’s time they were welcomed into the mainstream.

It is part of the re-positioning and re-branding process one hoped had already begun. But judging from those threats to step up violence they haven’t yet made a start.

This is a disappointment considering the hopes of so many are pinned on Hamas coming good."

Here I am posting the zionists reaction, ever after the PA dropped its pantes, toward the PA's PR campain,  "We are partners, what are you?", funded by USAID organization.

I wounder what would be the reaction towards the called upon Hamas "alternative, parallel peace talks

"The truth about our 'partners' "

Moshe Elad


Op-ed: As always, Palestinian negotiators more interested in PR victory than in "independence"

About a decade ago, upon the al-Aqsa Intifada's outbreak, I participated in a CNN panel with Diana Buttu, a renowned Palestinian attorney belonging to the PLO's negotiations department. The high salary she was received for her appearances, her fluency, and the significance she attributed to Palestinian propaganda prompted me to tell her and other panelists: I admit that the Palestinians are propaganda masters, and you'll continue to be just that for many years to come…but you won't get a state.

The recently launched Geneva Initiative campaign, where Palestinian partners seek to become your friend, just like on Facebook, demonstrates it again; The Palestinians are interested in a public relations win against Israel more than they aspire for independence. About a decade ago, they secured the services of Ed Abington, the former US consul general in Jerusalem; in exchange for more than $2 million, Arafat asked him to "wipe Israel out" on the public relations front.

We all know the result: Arafat was shunned by the Bush Administration and ended his life with the image of a perpetual terrorist in Ramallah, while Hamas toppled the Palestinian Authority in Gaza and left it weaker and more pathetic than ever (yet with an excellent PR department.)

Now, upon the launch of the 2010 direct talks, it's the Geneva Initiative's turn to attempt to elicit a Palestinian "PR victory." Why a PR victory? Because marketing Abbas, Erekat, Rajoub and their comrades as men of peace is a tough mission.

Let's take Chief Negotiator Saeb Erekat, for example. He had been etched in the Israeli public's consciousness during the bloody battle at the Jenin refugee camp during Operation Desert Shield in 2002, when he deceived the global media by disseminating false figures about "thousands of Palestinian victims" – eventually he was even boycotted by the media. Indeed, a more proper caption for Erekat's photo in the recent campaign would be: "Would you buy a used car from this man?"

 As to President Abbas, yet another propaganda star, I shall note that a few days ago, his minister of religious affairs said in his presence that "the word 'war' will not be removed from the Palestinian lexicon as long as Jerusalem is occupied." Abbas tells Israeli and Western elements that the refugee problem is "solvable," yet at the same time he inflames the passions of refugee camp dwellers by pledging that "the return is near" – and not to the West Bank, but rather, to Haifa, Akko, and the Galilee. So what kind of partner are they marketing here exactly, a partner for war?

'Armed struggle legitimate'  

Abbas and Yasser Abed Rabbo, yet another campaign star, keep on threatening that "the armed struggle hasn't ended, but rather, only changed its shape." What does Abed Rabbo wish to remind us of, that he started his way at Nayef Hawatmeh's Democratic Front, responsible for one of the gravest massacres in Israel's history? We remember. And what does Abbas wish to hint, that he played a role in the massacre of our athletes at the Munich Olympics? That the research work he wrote denied the Holocaust and associated the Nazis with the Jewish community in Eretz Yisrael? Who can even forget that?


Another PR star is Jibril Rajoub, who was removed from the president's decision-making circle in favor of his role as…chairman of the Palestinian soccer association. This old-new partner is so cooperative that he even objects to a joint Israeli-Palestinian soccer game. Those who try to remind him that US-China relations developed in the wake of a ping-pong game are wasting their time. The sportsmanlike spirit of Rajoub and his men stops at the Ramallah-Jerusalem border. What a great partner.


The Geneva Initiative group would do well to make clear to the Israeli public what Palestinian Authority officials truly think about peace with Israel. For example, that refugees will return only to "places they were expelled from" in Palestine (that is, within the Green line); or that no Palestinian will agree to a deal as long as even one settlement remains in the West Bank ("the situation has to be just like the Gaza disengagement"); and also: "The whole of east Jerusalem is Palestine's capital."


The Geneva people should also highlight the official Palestinian position, whereby as long as the occupation persists, "the armed Palestinian struggle is legitimate." And most importantly: That at best, we'll see agreement on a "temporary peace treaty," whose practical implication would be security arrangements, but certainly not true peace and an end to the conflict. Is there an Israeli partner for that? I doubt whether even the Geneva Initiative people would agree to accept such deal, yet for the time being they are serving the Palestinian PR machine.

Colonel (res.) Moshe Elad is a researcher at the Shmuel Neeman Institute at the Technion. He also serves as a National Security Studies lecturer at the Western Galilee Academic College

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian