Charlie Rose gets it wrong on 2006 Palestinian elections

Turkish PM Erdogan’s latest interview with Charlie Rose:

(5:30 of youtube clip, part 4 of 5)

(Beginning of a segment where Erdogan highlights the West’s hypocritical embrace of democracy only when it’s convenient)

Erdogan: Elections were held and Hamas won the elections.

Rose: (quickly interjecting) BUT NOT ON THE WEST BANK!

Erdogan: (apparently not aware that Hamas won the authority to represent the West Bank as well) I was speaking in general terms!

As we all know the Palestinian Authority elections of 2006 were held democratically while under occupation (quite a feat indeed).  I don’t think I need to copy and paste the quotes from Jimmy Carter and the UN verifying this. 

What some don’t know is that the elections were to decide representation of the entirety of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 (East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank).

Indeed Hamas’ Change and Reform bloc won an almost universal victory in the Gaza Strip (majorities of seats in every Gaza governate besides Rafah).

What Charlie Rose doesn’t know (or doesn’t want to know) is that Hamas also won a crushing landslide victory in Jerusalem and the West Bank as well.

They won a majority of seats in Jerusalem (despite the fix being in for Fatah), Tulkarem, Tubas, Nablus, Salfit, and more.

In fact: in the West Bank’s most populous governate of Hebron, Hamas won all 9 of the available seats. 

Furthermore, in a stunning humiliation for Fatah & the Salam Fayyad Teen Bop fanclub (Charlie Rose, Roger Cohen, & Tom Friedman) Hamas won 5 of 6 seats in the seat of the fake Palestinian state, Ramallah.

The great thing about the Washington Establishment’s colonial fetish for the fake state being built "from the ground up", is that even when that fake vision is rejected overwhelmingly and publicly by the colonized people being spoken for; the fetish cannot be weakened in the slightest.

Even 4 years and a failed Fatah coup attempt later: the Fayyad  Fetish stubbornly lives on in the hearts of aging white men across Washington and London.

Posted in Beyondoweiss, Israel Lobby, Israel/Palestine

{ 41 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. You didn’t counter Rose’s point. You named exceptions. I don’t know from your post who won the West Bank.

    Massachusetts is a democratic state. But, there is a republican senator and prior to the current governor, there were 4 republicans. Does that mean that the republicans won Massachusetts? Hard to know.

    • Shafiq says:

      The West Bank and Gaza are part of one state. Although I’m pretty sure Hamas won a majority in the West Bank too (seeing as the West Bank is more populous, how else would they have won a majority), it doesn’t matter. They won the election outright in Palestine.

      • Chaos4700 says:

        Hamas won a clear majority among West Bank residents — not that matters, like you said, but that is reported fact. And has been since, you know, 2006 when it happened.

      • Of course it matters.

        What kind of mindless response is that, to say that information is irrelevant?

        You want to comment on the information, wonderful. Please don’t go “propaganda is better than thinking”.

    • Chaos4700 says:

      You didn’t counter Rose’s point. You named exceptions. I don’t know from your post who won the West Bank.

      Why do you have to go through such great pains to prove that you’re an ignorant racist, Witty? Seriously, it’s not even ad hominem for me to point it out. You’re literally denying things outright, David Duke style.

    • Donald says:

      He says Hamas won a crushing victory in Jerusalem and the West Bank as well.

      There’s a link in the post to the election results in all districts. Hamas did better in almost all of them.

      • “change and reform” is Hamas?

        • Donald says:

          ““change and reform” is Hamas?”

          Richard, I’m not an expert, but here’s a clue–in the very post that you are attacking, Joseph says

          “Indeed Hamas’ Change and Reform bloc won an almost universal victory in the Gaza Strip ”

          I think this is a fairly clear illustration of just how much attention you pay to the posts that you regularly attack.

        • MarkF says:

          It is change and reform from Fatah.

          Hamas ran against Fatah corruption and incompetence. You have to think about it from the voter’s perspective. Hamas never ran the govt. so yes, it would have been a change.

    • Thanks to the two commentators who responded to this. This map should be useful for Mr. Witty: link to upload.wikimedia.org

      It shows that Fatah only won Jericho (1 seat), split Jenin, won Qalqilya and won Rafah. Every other governate (the other 12) were won by Hamas. I don’t see how I can make it any clearer.

    • potsherd says:

      Still trying to deny that the only legitimate government of Palestine is headed by Hamas, I see.

      Still trying to deny that your pet quislings are usurpers.

    • lysias says:

      The Wikipedia entry Palestinian legislative election, 2006 has a map showing the electio results: Fatah won three constituencies (one of them the southernmost one in the Gaza Strip), and had an even split in a fourth. All the other 12 constituencies on the map are shown as having gone to Change & Reform (the Hamas list).

      This is consistent with what the text says about the election results:

      The Central Elections Commission released the final results on Sunday, January 29, 2006, and announced that Hamas had won 74 of the 132 seats, while Fatah trailed with 45. [19]

      According to the results, Hamas won the large majority of the constituency seats but was more narrowly ahead on the lists. Fatah did beat Hamas in the constituencies in Qalqilya, Rafah, and Jericho. Jenin was split evenly, and Fatah won the seats reserved for Christians in Bethlehem, Jerusalem, and Ramallah.

  2. hayate says:

    I have not watch rose’s programme since the 90′s, he was full of the brown stinky stuff back then, too.

    And boring as all hell.

  3. kalithea says:

    Excellent article!! I watched that interview and I was APPALLED that Charlie Rose could lie through his teeth that way or be stupid enough to think no one would notice.

  4. demize says:

    You ever see his interview with Amy Goodman? He gets really indignant at one point when she said some of his colleagues were self censoring. He is what our fine cousins across the pond refer to as a twat. He is a psuedo-intellectual authoratarian, he genuflects to power.

    • hughsansom says:

      Authoratarian. Authoritarian. Tomaeto Tomahto. Potaeto Potahto. He’s all of the above.

      Git. Arse. Sod. Barmy. Daft. Prat. Twit. Wanker.

      I’ll go with the American: Rose is a lyin, mother-fuckin sack o’ shit. And that’s putting it politely. Pardon my French.

    • I remember Glen Greenwald wrote a story about his establishment genuflection, and posted youtube clips of Friedman saying “Suck on this” and also the clip you mention attacking Amy Goodman. I watch all his interviews with Middle East leaders (for some reason he does these a lot). Erdogan, Ahmadinejad, Assad and more. He always completely ignores everything they say which is valid and he only repeats zionist and Washington establishment (is there any difference between the two) talking points.

    • Chu says:

      Rose was a perfect choice for PBS. Nice guy, calm and knows how to take orders from above. Molded in the form of Jim Lehrer.

  5. demize says:

    Authoritarian.

  6. Brewer says:

    Obama didn’t win Alaska, Alabama, Arizona and Arkansas – and that’s just the States beginning with A.

    Jeez Witty.

    What passes without remark is that Abbas has overstayed his Presidential term by eighteen months – by his own decree. If due process had been observed, Azziz Dwaik (Hamas) should now hold that office.
    I have never known what to make of this and why Hamas has allowed it. One thing that can be deduced is that Hamas is definitely not the wild-eyed militaristic entity they are most often portrayed as. Admittedly the political makeup of the West Bank may preclude Hamas forcing the issue but it is interesting nevertheless.
    Funny how Israel and the U.S. always winds up opposing the people’s choice.

    • hayate says:

      Brewer

      “Funny how Israel and the U.S. always winds up opposing the people’s choice.”

      I think that’s the key right there.

  7. hughsansom says:

    Charlie Rose got something wrong?! Shocking! He must still have been woozy from boinking one of his ‘assistants’. (Yes — little inside-the-industry tidbit there.)

  8. vhs says:

    It’s like if someone were to argue that since Obama didn’t win in Texas he can’t be the elected president of the United States and it would be right for the UN (or some other entity) to support the Republican rule of Texas and to destabilize the Democratic rule in the rest of the country.

    • But in this case, it would be as if Obama won Texas, and Obama refused to meet 3 conditions set by outside powers, and the rest of the sequence you described then happened.

  9. I was also surprised that of a 50 minute interview, the only comments that Glatzer made were of a single detail, that obviously Erdogan also didn’t know whether was accurate or not, or in what respect.

    In the clip 4 referred, Erdogan made one good point critical of Israel which was that “Israel speaks of support for a two-state solution, but doesn’t act on it.” (Paraphrasing).

    The irony is that as Israel and the rest of the world has come to verbally and hopefully actually endorse and realize a two-state solution, the solidarity movement has rejected it.

    BOTH communities, both “leaderships” act as if they don’t want to accept the other, both still vainly hoping that the other will just leave.

    • potsherd says:

      Any solution that Israel endorses is bound to be no solution at all for Palestine.

    • Sumud says:

      Senseless as usual.

      I’m not seeing any move ever by Israel to actually “realise” a two-state solution, and an awful lot to actually prevent it. A lot of hot air about two states though, accompanied by ceaseless settlement building.

      Why should anybody supporting Palestinian struggle for liberation do Israel’s bidding and support two-states – when Israel is so obviously, actively, opposed to a Palestinian state? Even the term itself is a deception. The formulation Israel has offered is state/state-minus, not two-states.

      Why should the Palestinians or those who support them play the rigged game?

    • Kathleen says:

      Quite obvious Israel has never wanted peace..just more territory. Keep moving the line over and over again

  10. Kathleen says:

    “What some don’t know is that the elections were to decide representation of the entirety of the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 (East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank).

    Indeed Hamas’ Change and Reform bloc won an almost universal victory in the Gaza Strip (majorities of seats in every Gaza governate besides Rafah).

    What Charlie Rose doesn’t know (or doesn’t want to know) is that Hamas also won a crushing landslide victory in Jerusalem and the West Bank as well.

    They won a majority of seats in Jerusalem (despite the fix being in for Fatah), Tulkarem, Tubas, Nablus, Salfit, and more.”

    And former President Jimmy Carter begged the U.S. congress not to isolate Hamas after this internationally recognized free and fair election. But Rep Ros Lehtine, Lantos etc did their very best at isolating Hamas based on inflamed claims. Only supporting democratically elected parties when they approve.

  11. Kathleen says:

    Charlie Rose was knocked down a while back when he had Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett on to discuss the situation with Iran. Charlie Rose repeated the endlessly repeated , debunked and purposely inflammatory claim that the Iranian President said Iran wanted to “wipe Israel off the map”

    Flynt knocked Charlie upside the head and corrected that false statement. Charlie repeated that lie just like Terry Gross does all the time and most of the MSM talking heads allow Micheal Ledeen, Senator Schumer, John Bolton etc repeat this hogwash.

    Flynt knocked that false statement out of the conversation at least for that moment

    • The “lie”, the translation, was provided by the Iranian Press Service (IRIB, which broadcasts in English).

      If you want to blame someone for misinterpreting, blame them.

      It was quoted from them directly.

      • RW
        How many time Israel has threatened to wipe out Iran?
        you will say never. But doesn’t nuke attack wipe a country out in smitherness for generation? hasn’t Israeli agnets in US and in proper Isarel has advocated this line of attack? hasn’t US repetedly ( Clinton/Biden/podohoretz/Krystol/Liberaman ) asserted rights to destroy Iran?

        havben’t we heard same argument and reasoning for attacks on Iraq ( to protect israel acc to Zelkow in University of virginia student gathering) and haven’t we wiped out the civic society of Iraq ?
        Haven’t we and our ally Israel reduced life in Gaza to the level of nonexistence ?

      • Sumud says:

        Yes that’s entirely reasonable. It’s well known Iran’s official press agency the Islamic Republic News Agency (not the Iran Press Service) controls global media and forced them to repeat the mistranslation ad nauseum – even after it was shown to be completely inaccurate.

        “Wiped off the Map: The Rumour of the Century ”
        link to mohammadmossadegh.com

        The Islamic Republic News Agency also controls the US House of Reps, which in 2007 called for the UN to charge Ahmadenijad with inciting genocide..

        “Caught Red-Handed: Media backtracks on Iran’s anti-Israel Threat”
        link to mohammadmossadegh.com

      • Sumud says:

        Juan Cole’s piece on false translation. Hitchens again!

        ‘Hitchens the Hacker; And, Hitchens the Orientalist And, “We don’t Want Your Stinking War!’
        link to juancole.com

        • link to web.archive.org

          The gist of the left’s position on the statement is that it is an indication that the western press is out to get Iran.

          That the translation came from the Iranian international press service, indicates to the western press that there own translation is what they meant.

    • Chu says:

      Thanks Kathleen, missed that interview.
      at minute 27
      link to charlierose.com

    • hayate says:

      Kathleen

      The Leveretts have written a lot of informative articles on Iran. I’m surprised the jingo had them on as they would be bound to make rose look the horse’s arse he is.

  12. MarkF says:

    It was also repeated at our Synagogue during last years High Holidays for the Israel Bond drive by the Israel representative who is in charge of rustling up the money.