Saeb Erekat, "chief negotiator" of the Palestine Liberation Organization, recommends in the New York Times (thanks to Sr. Soph) that the world ignore the clear implications of the Hamas victory:
The Hamas victory cannot be allowed to obscure the reality: the Palestinian people want a negotiated peace, and in Mr. Abbas they have a Palestinian Authority president and P.L.O. chairman who shares their view, enjoys a mandate to act and has the ability to deliver. For those committed to reaching a two-state solution, public support on both sides of the conflict likely provides the last opportunity to see our vision materialize. Now we all have a duty to respond immediately to our peoples' demands for a negotiated peace.
Nonsense. The people aren't demanding a negotiated peace, and Abbas can't deliver one. If the people wanted a negotiated peace, they wouldn't have voted in such large numbers for Hamas. It isn't as if the organization has ever been shy about what it stands for.
Of course, this childish nonsense would appear in the NYT. Robert, you may be too reasonable. Whether or not the NYT is sinking into dhimmitude, it is surely losing the capacity to reason based on empirical evidence.
Erekat is a politician, schooled in the art of telling his audience what he thinks we want to hear. In this case, the "audience" is the NYT's editorial board, who chose to believe it, because that's what suits their political persuasion, not because Erekat's claim is at all credible.
Actually, Erekat's claim is worse than lacking credibility. Having been a fairly senior advisor to the former government, Erekat knows full well the role Fatah played as the PA's first government in building the climate for a Hamas victory via schools, the media and orchestrated mass violence (aka "the Intifada" Parts I and II) wherein religious triumphalism was cultivated as a weapon to pursue the PLO's wish to eliminate Israel.
Erakat has to be one of the most egregious lying SOBs to emerge from the PA.
(are his lips moving ? - he is lying)
Maybe Dubai can hire him to lobby us together with peanut Jimmy(funded by Arabs), Bill Clinton(funded by Arabs), Bob Dole(funded by Arabs), Madeline Albright(funded by Arabs), Gge Bush Sr.(funded by Arabs).
The new test in American politics is the smell test.
Next popular title : "The Purchase of the Beltway".
I would have thought by now that given the experience of taqyia practiced by Arafat and co. people would be wise enough not to believe a word presented by them in English, especially in the NYT and WaPo.
One can see that the success Erekat and Shaath had with their lies and distortions only encouraged those Danish Imams to foist those false extra cartoons on the Muslim world.
Amazing how the Islamic world only seems to exist on chronic hysteria brewed with outrageous lies and distotions and served with blatant demagoguery.
Forgot to include this link:
"Spin at The Times'
Between Arafat's op-ed, and Sontag's portrayal of Hamas as Mr. Rogers, it would have been enough. "
http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/45884734/critiques/Spin_at_The_Times.asp
"It would have been bad enough for The New York Times to publish Yasir Arafat's op-ed piece, "The Palestinian Vision of Peace," on February 3. It dripped with crocodile tears for Israeli victims of terror. Arafat lied with impunity when he "condemned the attacks carried out by terrorist groups against Israeli civilians." Yet Fatah and Tanzim are terror groups led by Arafat himself!
Arafat tried to deny the historical record when he wrote of Ariel Sharon's "opposition to every peace treaty." But Knesset voting records show that Sharon supported Israel's withdrawal from Sinai. Sharon supported the treaty with Jordan, too. And Sharon negotiated the deal with Arafat at Wye. So why does the Times allow the publication of Arafat's lies? "
Nothing has changed with regard to the Palestinian leadership and the NYT.
Define "negotiated peace."
The kind that leads to a temporary, deceptive Islamic truce? Or, the kind that results from one side or the other being arm-twisted into a Saddam-in-the-spider-hole sort of "willingness to negotiate," whether it is they who are brought to that point by Israeli forces, or if they were to succeed in blackmailing Israel with terrorism and Iranian nukes?
One more in a soft parade of Liars.
The "Palestinian" majority voted for terrorists.
They want Israel annihilated.
They desire Sharia Law.
The only support they deserve is a rope.
Listening to the Palestinian leadership since the election is like stepping through the looking glass. In the first place, withholding support does not mean we are hypocrits with regard to our support of democracy; quite the opposite. Withholding support is justified precisely because the elections WERE fair and valid. The Palestinians chose Hamas, and with that choice offered a ringing endorsment of blowing up busses and cafes as a way of getting what they want. That choice has consequences. At this point my sympathy for the Palestinian people is limited to those too young to vote, and those who, in vain, voted more intelligently. And as for whether or not Hamas is willing to work for peace: their own charter details explicitly that they must not. Furthermore, it states their paranoid and absurd belief in a global Jewish conspiracy involving Freemasons, Rotary and Lions Clubs, global control of media, and the intentional Jewish creation of World Wars One and Two. It would be laughable if they weren't in charge of a government. But given those beliefs, it would be even more laughable to assume they intended to make peace with Israel. Ever.