Trending Topics:

Trump’s ambassador says the unspeakable: Uprooting settlers could ’cause civil war’

Media Analysis
on 42 Comments

Last Sunday, the U.S. Ambassador to Israel David Friedman said the unspeakable behind closed doors to American Jewish leaders (as reported by Israeli television).

[T]he settlers are going nowhere. The uprooting of hundreds of thousands of settlers could cause a civil war in Israel.

The comment was a depth charge against the two-state solution– from a former bankruptcy lawyer who has helped fund the settlements. And leading liberal Zionists have pushed back. Jeremy Ben-Ami of J Street wrote angrily that the Trump administration and the settlers were “dragging Israelis and Palestinians further into a one-state nightmare.”

Friedman was misstating the reality, and maligning Israel, Ben-Ami went on:

Friedman’s claim that settler evacuation would lead to a civil war is (a) based on several falsehoods and (b) insulting to the strength and resilience of Israeli democracy.

Because the two-state solution is still quite achievable:

Nearly all objective experts who’ve looked at the issue agree that only a limited percentage of settlers beyond the Green Line would need to relocate because negotiations over an Israeli-Palestinian border would certainly include land swaps.

Wildly exaggerating the number of settlers who would need to move under a peace deal is a favored scare tactic of settler advocates looking to make a two-state agreement seem infeasible — which it is not.

Anshel Pfeffer at Haaretz had a similar message: The parameters of the two-state solution are very clear, and when it’s time to effect them the settlers will walk away:

The warning that any possible eviction of settlements could lead to civil war has been used by some settlers in the past, although most responsible settler leaders say that if an Israeli government will so decree it, they will have no choice but to leave.

Pfeffer was as angry as Ben-Ami; he said the Israeli government should reprimand the US ambassador for casting aspersions on Israelis. The Israel army has never mutinied. The settlers are not “capable of fomenting civil war.” Only 80,000 Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank.

Whatever their political and religious views, the great majority of them are Israeli patriots who ultimately would accept the decision of the government.

The interesting thing about Friedman’s comments is that they echo the views of many on the left, who say that the two-state solution is dead, you will never pull out the settlers, and so let us accept the new reality, one state in which Palestinians are denied equal rights.

The Israeli writer Yossi Gurvitz said exactly what Friedman said about civil war, seven years ago:

“I’m not sure Partition is possible anymore. There are 400,000 settlers in the West Bank. No one has the political will and capital to remove them. Trying to remove them will result in a civil war. I don’t think it’s an option anymore.”

(Today the usual figure is 600-650,000 settlers.)

More importantly, Gurvitz said Israeli leadership actually believes the Friedman scenario more than the liberal Zionist one: the settlers are capable of fomenting civil war, and that threat is what has stopped Israel from taking any steps to implement a two-state solution.

This civil war threat is making [the two-state solution] non-viable. We need to move to a one-state solution, but I don’t see how we can sell it to either side…

It should go without saying that when an Israeli prime minister, Rabin, took real steps toward giving up occupied land for peace with Palestinians, he was assassinated, in 1995. Gurvitz  says the wider conspiracy behind the assassination was never investigated, again because of the political following it has.

When it comes to Jewish terrorism, the Israeli establishment is afraid. It will act only when it has to, it will not investigate deeply, it will let people go off…. They were afraid [that] doing a crackdown on the entire network would have led to either more assassinations, which was possible, or a widespread civil war. It’s been forgotten. No one speaks about it, it’s gone.

Liberal Zionists tend to diminish rightwing trends in Israeli society. But racist settlers have made it clear that they will enact “pricetag” attacks on Palestinians or even Israelis if they are compelled to leave the West Bank.

Removing just 8,000 settlers in Gaza in 2005 required a huge effort, as Gurvitz has noted: At least two soldiers were required for each settler, and large payments too. Removing a couple of hundred thousand West Bank settlers would damage the Israeli economy significantly and involve virtually the entire army, he says.

The most important point here, though, is the political reality: The settlement project has thrived for 50 years, and it continues to thrive, with new announcements almost every day. While it has been international law for over 50 years– and U.S. policy too– that the settlers should get out of East Jerusalem and the West Bank (and the Golan too), nothing has ever come of that stance. No, the U.S. has failed to push Israel to “uproot” any settlers, due in large part to Friedman’s audience for his speech: the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, one of the leading Israel lobby groups in U.S. political life, which has stopped all moves against the occupation.

Whatever J Street’s good intentions, it has been specifically excluded from the Conference. Even as the Conference president, Malcolm Hoenlein, celebrated 50 years of occupation with rightwing Israelis in occupied territory:

Malcolm Hoenlein, chairman of Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, at Western Wall on Jerusalem Day May 24, 2017

This is ultimately not an ideological issue, but a question of reality. Many former adherents of the two-state solution have thrown in the towel. Henry Siegman said last month in The National Interest that Trump’s Jerusalem announcement had a good effect to “shatter the illusion of a two-state outcome, and allow the Palestinian national movement to turn into a struggle for rights, which is to say a struggle to end Israel’s de facto apartheid regime, a course I have advocated for over a decade, and now increasingly embraced by younger Palestinians.”

Thanks to Scott Roth, who commented on Friedman’s statement about civil war: “It’s true, and whose fault is that? Israel’s. And who will pay the price for not dismantling settlements? Palestinians.” That price, of course, gets lost in all the U.S. political discussions.


Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

42 Responses

  1. amigo on February 22, 2018, 5:03 pm

    “Trump’s ambassador says the unspeakable: Uprooting settlers could ’cause civil war’”.

    I don,t see why that would be such a negative outcome.#

    Crazy , land thieves and racist bigots reducing their overall numbers would be a positive outcome.If they want to kill each other over someone elses land then why should anyone get in their way.

    • annie on February 22, 2018, 5:54 pm

      for one thing, the settlers way of war is to punish palestinians for israeli infractions. so that would be one negative outcome. also there are lots of jews in the army who protect the settlers. i’d imagine there’d be a mutiny of sorts.

      let’s face it, the israelis have no problem efficiently uprooting people from their homes, so they could do it if they had the will for it. and if they didn’t have the will to do it, we could pressure them to do it too. #BDS them into compliance.

      • amigo on February 22, 2018, 7:31 pm

        Annie , I am aware that Palestinins would suffer but they already do.

        The possibility of the Jewish population in Israel and Occupied Palestine reaching a significant decline , in numbers and power through tribal warfare , and emmigration is a positive outcome from my perspective.Nobody invited these infiltrators to plonk themselves on someone else,s land and expel 700,000 of the indigenous population to set up a racist , supremacist entity.

        They get no sympathy from me anymore than the White supremacists in SA did.

      • echinococcus on February 23, 2018, 2:44 am


        The Palestinians are undergoing a genocide already; hard to see how Zionists can “punish” them any worse. Internecine strife among the Zionist murderers and if possible a civil war are inevitable if and when they get less support from the so-called West. They are also a much to be wished and encouraged part of liberation –should happen before the Zionists can complete their genocide.

        Only, that “civil war” won’t be due to a selective withdrawal from the post-67 occupation because there won’t ever be such a withdrawal. 60+ years since Suez should have been enough for everybody, even those who still believe in Santa, to understand that withdrawal is only a fake discussion point to keep the illusion in the West that there is a “peace process” or somesuch. Zionists (and the US) are exclusively about genocide and conquest –not in any way or wise making concessions unless coerced by superior force.

      • Lillian Rosengarten on February 23, 2018, 11:59 am

        Yes Annie, I have always felt that is the way to go despite US -Zionist complicity.

      • annie on February 23, 2018, 2:01 pm


        The Palestinians are undergoing a genocide already; hard to see how Zionists can “punish” them any worse

        echi, i suppose one could make the argument (for someone else) that since their genocide is already taking place, why not the faster the better? i don’t ascribe to that kind of thinking nor do i think it’s my decision to make about anyones life except my own.

        that aside, i think your statement lacks common sense. ie, if fanatical settlers began abducting 100’s of palestinians daily and systematically executed them every evening for a month while the state turned a blind eye.. .. i would consider that a worse punishment.

        Annie , I am aware that Palestinins would suffer but they already do.

        amigo, you said you didn’t see why a civil war “would be such a negative outcome”, while musing about how “land thieves and racist bigots reducing their overall numbers would be a positive outcome”.

        please note in my earlier reply i didn’t advocate either for or against a civil war. what will be will be and whatever i say about it won’t make a speck of difference. but musing about ones unsavory ideological opponents hacking eachother to bits while ignoring –completely unmentioned — that significant majority of civilians in this battlefield, who are completely unarmed and defenseless and the likely target of the most fanatical extremists, as if they were not even considered, seems rather astounding to me.

        it seems so blithe, this “positive overall outcome” and ‘why would it be so negative’ and ‘palestinians already suffer’ so them suffering more might be ok or worth it? i don’t know, i can’t ponder the slaughter of unarmed innocent people casually. and i do consider palestinians innocent and victims of colonization as well as the overwhelming likely victims in any impending civil war. so that’s a decision not for me to make, but for them. but to talk about it w/merely a mention of them as if we’re so accustomed to witnessing their suffering they do not even count? for what? for the pleasure of the idea of watching our enemies kill eachother?

        i don’t know. count me out of that discussion. you asked what might be negative and i took the opportunity to mention the death of innocent victims. i think it’s at least worth mentioning them, and pondering their demise, in any civil war scenario. that’s all.

        thanks lillian, always good to see you around.

      • echinococcus on February 25, 2018, 12:11 am


        Ignoring all the basic arguments in a discussion does not make them disappear because the facts are still there that there won’t be any Zionist withdrawal and that this is a war that has been going on full force since 1947.

    • Kay24 on February 23, 2018, 3:56 am

      So couldn’t the “intelligent’ zionists realize that there will be “civil war” when they built their illegal settlements?

      If there is a “civil war” it is not the problem of the Palestinians, or the world. Israel with it’s brutal IDF should be able to quell that. It will be fun watching them deal with armed illegal settlers.

      • oldgeezer on February 23, 2018, 9:15 am


        Indeed, why should the Palestinians or indeed the world care that Israel may face a civil war. The fact that there is such a substantial violent and lawless group of Israelis is there problem alone. Why should criminals be allowed to profit from their crimes merely out of concern that justice might upset them. Can anyone name a single justice system in the world that works on that premise? Israel knew in 67 that it’s settlement project was illegal. The UNSC and many judicial bodies have issued constant reminders.

        If Israelis wish to shed blood killing their partners in crime then let them. Their hands are dripping with blood already and some more isn’t going to bother their (lack of) conscience one little bit.

        Declare the Palestinian state on 67 or 48 lines. Declare the settlements part of Palestine as they legally are. Deprive the settlers of basic human rights for about 70 years as they have done to their victims and watch them run away on their own. Ok not serious about depriving them of basic rights. Those that wish to stay and make a positive contribution to the state of Palestine should not only be permitted but welcomed.

      • Lillian Rosengarten on February 23, 2018, 12:00 pm

        Kay— fun??

      • Kay24 on February 23, 2018, 10:24 pm

        Lillian, by “fun” I mean watching the IDF having to take a stern stance with these thugs, who usually get away with all crimes against helpless Palestinians. So far they treat them with kid gloves, and look the other way, when they abuse the Palestinians.
        The zionists have been having far too much of “fun” at the expense of their victims.

      • Kay24 on February 23, 2018, 10:37 pm

        OG, I agree to all what you say, and indeed the zionists have so much of blood on their hands, they are even wading in it. It was arrogance, and the usual sense of entitlement, typical of zionists, that made them think that going outside the 1967 borders, against international laws, is okay, and the fact that the US sent them billions of dollars to do just that, pretending to criticize them, yet shielding them from UN condemnation, enabled them to steal, demolish, and build acres of squatter homes. Their attitude was “so we build on disputed land,, so what can you do now? We don’t care a damn about what anyone thinks”.

        The zionists are doing what it always accuses the Arabs of doing – wiping the Palestinians off the map, by stealing, demolishing, building, killing, maiming, and already the results are showing.

    • Emory Riddle on February 23, 2018, 7:12 am

      Right. This is bad for America how, Friedman? Who do you represent?

    • Misterioso on February 23, 2018, 12:15 pm

      It is important to remember that under international law, the Gaza Strip is still illegally occupied by Israel, i.e., in gross violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention, “collective punishment.”

      Here’s the Zionists’ latest assault on the human rights of Gazans:

      “To Leave Gaza, Israel Asks Palestinian Minors to Commit They Not Return for a Year”

      “Israel imposes harsher restrictions on Gazan kids leaving the Strip for abroad, demanding they sign an agreement to stay away”
      By Amira Hass. Feb 23, 2018 – Haaretz

  2. annie on February 22, 2018, 5:17 pm

    phil, great coverage. i really like how you segued gurvitz’s always illuminating commentary into this article and appreciate the links to your older interviews w/him. i remember, years ago when you were heading over to the ME, advising you to go meet yossi gurvitz! so brilliant. thanks.

  3. Keith on February 22, 2018, 5:18 pm

    DAVID FRIEDMAN- “The uprooting of hundreds of thousands of settlers could cause a civil war in Israel.”

    It is not inconceivable that it would happen. My understanding is that there are serious divisions in Israeli Jewish society which, absent an external enemy to stimulate defensive solidarity, could spiral out of control. Simply put, Israeli Zionists need an external Arab enemy and an internal Palestinian threat to function as a unified Jewish state. Israel requires a permanent state of war and possibly could not survive peace.

    The US is somewhat similar. As American neoliberalism proceeds apace and social conditions worsen, we go from enemy to enemy in our own endless war. The current threat to our “democracy” is Russian interference in the political process where supposedly 13 private Russian internet trolls overwhelmed our fat-cat/corporate financed political system by spending $100K over two years placing questionable social media ads which catapulted Donald Trump over Princess Hillary into the White House now controlled by Putin. Or at least sowed discontent into the otherwise idyllic USA. I link to a must see video of Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY) saying that Russian internet trolling is equivalent to Pearl Harbor.

    One can only wonder what the response would be to candidates prostrating themselves before the American Russian Public Affairs Committee (ARPAC) swearing undying fealty to Russia, ARPAC itself but a part of the Conference of President of Major American Russian Organizations. How about birthright trips to Russia? Russian sayanim, etc? What it goes to show is two things. First, there is zero intellectual integrity in our political system which is completely subservient to our economic system. Second, of course, is follow the money. Billions of dollars buys a lot. $100K isn’t enough to afford a speech by either Bill or Hillary Clinton.

    • Keith on February 23, 2018, 11:03 am

      ” $100K isn’t enough to afford a speech by either Bill or Hillary Clinton.”

      Just to put the finances in perspective, I provide another quote to illustrate the “Russian connection.”

      “And shortly after the Russians announced their intention to acquire a majority stake in Uranium One, Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” (NYT)

      • Mooser on February 23, 2018, 1:49 pm

        ” Mr. Clinton received $500,000 for a Moscow speech”

        No wonder Hilary Clinton wanted the Russian sanctions eliminated! No wonder she won’t enforce them.

      • RoHa on February 23, 2018, 7:23 pm

        Waste of money. I’m prepared to give a speech for just $350,000 plus GST and expenses. In better English, too.

      • gamal on February 23, 2018, 8:01 pm

        ” In better English, too.”

        and you just get to use commas and no one says a thing, some of us were pretty slack at school, obviously when sober I will apologise.

  4. Mooser on February 22, 2018, 6:14 pm

    So how would this civil war work, I wonder? Settlers, armed with light weapons and a few trucks against the IDF, or will the IDF split, some factions staying loyal to the government, and some defending the settlers? Wonder which way the Israeli Air Force would go?
    Or maybe the IDF will back the settlers, and put Israel under martial law, in a sense, occupy it?

    • amigo on February 22, 2018, 7:44 pm

      “So how would this civil war work”Mooser.

      That,s easy, Jon S will gather all the Left wing forces and march on the capital , (TA) and demand a total surrender of the Zioniist forces .


      • Mooser on February 23, 2018, 1:19 pm


        And a YMMV, too!

    • Stephen Shenfield on February 24, 2018, 5:40 pm

      The real danger comes from IDF officers sympathetic to or connected with the settlers. I read somewhere that there has been a quiet effort over the years to increase the number of such officers and get them promoted to key positions. Add to that the likelihood that Israel’s nuclear arsenal includes tactical nuclear weapons and that control over those weapons is decentralized. Pro-settler officers may be able to gain control over tactical nukes and threaten to use them if settlers are forcibly removed.

      • Mooser on February 25, 2018, 2:17 pm

        “Pro-settler officers may be able to gain control over tactical nukes and threaten to use them if settlers are forcibly removed.”

        Chas v’cholileh!

  5. on February 22, 2018, 7:50 pm

    “Only 80,000 Israeli settlers will have to leave the West Bank.”

    So approximately 550,000 settlers get to stay?

    I thought this site was anti-Zionist.

  6. iResistDe4iAm on February 22, 2018, 8:03 pm

    “The settlers are going nowhere.”

    But why did Israel deliberately place 600,000 Jewish civilians in subsidised settlements on stolen land deep inside occupied enemy territories (territories with which it is still technically at war)?

    And why did Friedman help to fund such settlements on stolen land deep inside occupied enemy territories?

    The late Ed Koch (former mayor of New York City) was being honest when he stated that the settlements are intended “to provide a defense bulwark” against “the Islamist armies” of five nations. In other words, the 600,000 Jewish settlers are Israel’s “defense bulwark”, or first line of defense (colloquially known as: human shields).

    “You ask Israel to cease building settlements on the West Bank, which are intended not only to house Israelis, but to provide a defense bulwark when the Islamist armies of the surrounding states, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria – Assad or his opponents – and Iraq, again try militarily to crush Israel” ~ Ed Koch, 2013

  7. wondering jew on February 22, 2018, 9:27 pm

    No peace treaty will be signed by Israel and Palestine without withdrawal of Israeli troops from the temple mount. ( the new controllers could be an amalgam army). Assuming current trends in Israeli voting, specifically in Jewish Israeli voting, it seems unlikely that such a withdrawal would occur without intense US pressure. An Israeli government that bends to US demands will have the backing of the masses if they are convinced that there is no escape from the US pressure other than acceding to it. The hard core settlers who will not be in power will tell the public how if only they would be listened to that Israel can defy the US, if only they were in power, will be opposed by the masses if a leader steps forward and says, this is the only way forward. The settlers will be dismissed as messianists and will be defeated by the man in the streets. It would take unprecedented pressure. The rabin and olmert peace forays were sold to the public as self motivated but this future peace will be sold as a type of surrender.

    • wondering jew on February 22, 2018, 9:38 pm

      A real Israeli leader would go on TV and say, this is my assessment that we have no choice, I will call new elections and if you think my assessment is wrong, based on personal weakness, then replace me and then he’d have to win that election.

      • wondering jew on February 23, 2018, 11:58 am

        I don’t think such American pressure is on the near horizon. Back in ’88 I thought that the democratic party abandonment of Israel was a near thing, as personified by Jesse Jackson, but the presidency of Clinton changed that trend. I think if Obama and Olmert had been in office the same time that a peace could have been reached. I think the pro Palestinian instinct of Obama was nipped in the bud by the Democratic party’s need for pro Zionist campaign contributions, so the next time around, that there is pressure, it might have to be at the point that the democratic party grass roots will no longer tolerate a policy they disagree with. I think that will not happen tomorrow. I think that most democrats are not focused on foreign policy and while anti colonialism is part of the progressive party’s state of mind, there is too much turmoil in the middle east, so that indeed “it is complicated” is enough to get most or many democrats to feel ambivalent towards the anti zionist program, which can be painted as simplistic, as if that change alone can calm the middle east turmoil.

      • Mooser on February 23, 2018, 12:35 pm

        “A real Israeli leader would go on TV and say, this is my assessment that we have no choice”

        He could begin his remarks with: ‘I speak to you today in the spirit of the great Yitzak Rabin…’.

        If the Jews had wanted to face conditions of choicelessness, they would have stayed in Europe. One does not redeem a homeland by bowing to necessity! “We have no choice” must never be heard in Israel.

  8. JWalters on February 22, 2018, 10:51 pm

    On the 100th anniversary of the Balfour letter to his uncle, Nathan Rothschild reported that his family had led the financing of Israel not to create a safe haven for Jews, but for
    “that sacred goal, the return of Israel to its ancestral homeland” (8:50 in video).

    The financiers behind Israel have kept the settler faction in power to this day. Since Nathan and his uncle did not leave England for the desert, one might wonder if they shared these “sacred” feelings, or had some other motive, such as creating war for profit. e.g.
    “War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror”

  9. Ossinev on February 23, 2018, 7:12 am

    I think Herr Friedman conveniently forgot to mention that his puppet government would simply not fund the evacuation and resettlement of the 600,000 + settlers what with property prices in Israel itself and presumably all those Brooklynites wanting to return to their ancient homeland Mark 2 in NY. Yup the bottom line is as always follow the money or as in this case follow the lack of money.

    @Yonah F
    “A real Israeli leader”. Ah you mean like a real ghost. Capisco !

  10. inbound39 on February 23, 2018, 9:50 am

    Ultimately Israel is and will continue to be the Author of its own misfortune.

  11. Jasonius Maximus on February 23, 2018, 10:21 am

    Not a single Jewish Settler need be relocated if land swaps are on the table!

    The 600,000 Jews living in the West Bank can keep their houses if the families of the 600,000 Arabs expelled in 1947 can get their homes back in Israel.

    Sounds like a fair swap to me… A home for a home.

  12. Maghlawatan on February 23, 2018, 1:20 pm

    The settlers would lose a civil war. The schmucks on the other side pay all the taxes.
    The settlement project has no reverse gear. Even if it destroys Israel it has no reverse gear. Because Israel thought the Palestinians would give up.
    The law of unintended conséquences forced the ambassador to speak. Israel has no idea how to move forward.

  13. Ossinev on February 23, 2018, 3:01 pm

    The current figure for settlers in the O/T is generally believed to be 600,000 – 700,000 and that figure obviously will grow each year with the birth rate. Mad Donald has given a green light to further settlement building .I know his signals have changed occasionally from green to amber depending on which way the wind his blowing his “hair” but the message is clear to the Zraelis = yes you can build build build. He is certainly not going to change his policy. Obama has been the only recent President to flicker on red but that came to naught as we well know and the Zraelis have and will continue overtly or surreptitiously to expand settlements and settlement populations. Can`t be too long before we are talking about 1 ,000,000 + settlers which will self evidently vaporise the corpse of the 2SS and usher in the overt single Apartheid Zioland.

    Could say that the Zraelis are shooting themselves in the foot. Perhaps more appropriate in light of recent events to say that they are slapping themselves in the face – and no they are not waking up to the reality of the hole that they have dug for themselves.

    • Citizen on February 23, 2018, 5:02 pm

      I also think that 1 million settlers is on the horizon; there’s no evidence this won’t happen. The Trump Administration is totally behind the settler expansion. I don’t see how this would change if Trump was ousted. The only question is what will the Palestinians do now that this is clear? Going to the UN means nothing at this point.

  14. James Canning on February 23, 2018, 5:38 pm

    Let the currently illegal settlers in the occupied West Bank remain in an independent Palestine, subject to their compliance with the laws of that state.

    • Mooser on February 23, 2018, 7:33 pm

      “Let the currently illegal settlers in the occupied West Bank remain in an independent Palestine, subject to their compliance with the laws of that state.”

      Sure, if the “laws of the state” don’t include settlers having to give land back to the Palestinians it was taken from, they should be just fine.

      • oldgeezer on February 23, 2018, 9:36 pm


        It doesn’t need to require that. I have said the same thing as James. Frankly I think you have on more than one occassion. I don’t want to search comments to make the point so I stand to be simply corrected.

        These people have no real connection to the land. They’re looking to maximize the personal benefit regardless of whether it is legal or not. I dispute that it is legal but the mere statement is sufficient justification in their minds. The mere thought of being subject to Palestinian rule will have them running to Israel proper, and more likely, running for New York or other Euro countries. They are opportunists looking to benefit from subsidies and don’t care who they steal from.

        Offer them Palestinian citizenship and they will disappear faster than you can blink. And additionally they will suffer a financial loss due to reduced property values. Non criminal zionist should profit or even break even from the massive crimes they have inflicted on the original inhabitants of the region.

  15. Ossinev on February 24, 2018, 7:11 am

    “The only question is what will the Palestinians do now that this is clear? Going to the UN means nothing at this point”

    I think that it is clear and has been clear for a very long time that “the Palestinians” ie the current Palestinian Leadership will do what they have been doing basically since Oslo = travelling the world and having endless and pointless meetings with International Organisations and International Leaders over 7 course dinners in 15 star hotels all the while lining their own pockets whilst occasionally moaning about US duplicity.
    IMO they are no more nor less than hypocritical self serving collaborators. I have a lot more sympathy for the PA police and civil servants. At least for them it is quite literally a question of their salaries ensuring a roof over their head and food on the table for their families.

    Now that it is abundantly clear that 2SS is dead , buried,totally Kaputt and that the US is clearly and irrevocably on the side of the Zraelis in the maintenance of the status quo the “leadership” has only one choice which is the Erekat option of “handing back the keys” and demanding equal rights in a single state.

    Unfortunately just can`t see Abbas/Erekat et al ever voluntarily handing back the keys. It will need a younger generation of leaders to organise Palestinians to take to the streets in peaceful demonstrations to demand the disbandment of the PA Authority and a single equal rights state.When this happens the Zraelis will be fouling their undergarments.

    Will not be easy and their will be bloodshed. The PA police together with their most moral IDF buddies will suppress and disrupt but at least the rest of the world excluding the US will be faced with having to deal with an South Africa Apartheid scenario Mark 2 and we know how that unfolded.

Leave a Reply