The more reviews we get, the worse is the spirit of the Netanyahu speech. Writes Rob Browne (rbguy at Dailykos):
It was quite a horrible speech (laying all the blame on the Arab nations' 1948 partition decision (with no context mentioned), continued expansion of settlements, Jewish only Jerusalem, lack of return for Palestinian refugees, demilitarized state with no ability to forge treaties, etc. I laughed, I cried, I yelled -- sounds like the tag line for a bad movie poster.
When he talks about economic peace, is there anyone who has read Naomi Klein's "The Shock Doctrine" who has any trust in this neo-conservative's idea of economic peace. Any Palestinian should be incredibly scared of that part of his platform.
The thing that stuck out to me though was this paragraph:
"But, friends, we must state the whole truth here. The truth is that in the area of our homeland, in the heart of our Jewish Homeland, now lives a large population of Palestinians. We do not want to rule over them. We do not want to run their lives. We do not want to force our flag and our culture on them. In my vision of peace, there are two free peoples living side by side in this small land, with good neighborly relations and mutual respect, each with its flag, anthem and government, with neither one threatening its neighbor's security and existence."
To me this reads that he is talking about the Palestinians that live within Israel, as well as in the Occupied Territories. This seems like a shout-out to Avigdor Lieberman's followers for a purging of Palestinians from within the final borders of Israel. Truly frightening!
I can only assume that the temperature around the White House rose a few degrees after hearing this speech.
Like we say in arabic ,la-jhannam.To hell with him.
good. now we're getting somewhere. now, the next thing you need to do is go to israel or talk to everyday israelis. you will find that the majority, a large majority, have no interest in colonizing the west bank and feel very negatively about settlements and settlers (i know this, because i have close friends who hate these fanatics). the issue is that after the gaza withdrawal, israelis are reluctant to pull out these settlements again because they serve as a buffer against rocket fire. a serious offer on the lines of two states with recognition that palestine is the palestinian state and israel is the jewish state would be met with a very serious israeli response that would include removal of all or most settlements with equivalent, equal quality land swaps for other small areas (+/- 3%). peace is attainable. please open your heart to both sides.
They can't possibly have initiated a war that has been ongoing since before Israel became a state, when Israel ethnically cleansed the majority of Palestinians from their homes and land. They are under occupation. Israel's occupation of Palestinians' land is an ongoing act of war that was initiated by Israel. When Hamas fires rockets, they are the ones in the defensive position.
you are a nitwitt.
the honest truth is that both people need a homeland of their own. palestinians have suffered these past 60 years because they have not had a homeland of their own. i support their right to have one. however, those people who call one side 'boat people european invaders' and argue that these people are somehow not deserving of a patch of land of their own are simply bigots, and have some other agenda that does not include peace and security for all people on this earth. frankly i don't need to discuss the 'truth' about 1948, but for the sake of it, i'll even state that israelis committed brutal massacres and expelled people. it still doesn't change the fact that both people deserve a patch of land of their own one bit just as palestinian acts of terror over the last 60 years do not change the fact that they too deserve a land of their own.
Israel have a knack for creating their worst fears. When they withdrew from Gaza, they resorted to their usual scorched earth policy, walled it up into an open air prison and and fired 7,700 into the Gaza for good measure. What did they expect the Gazans to do? Rocket fire resulted from this vice like grip. After all, the last time Israel were on the receiving end of a blockage (that only affected 5% of shipments) they declared it an act of war. And how does having a buffer help you when you continue to expand toward the borders with other states?
Where is the independent state of the Roma? What about their right to self-determination? What about the genocide of the Roma in the Holocaust? They have suffered as much persecution as Jews, and more, since they still don't have a country of their own. Which indigenous population should we displace in order to create an independent country for them?
"good. now we're getting somewhere. now, the next thing you need to do is go to israel or talk to everyday israelis. you will find that the majority, a large majority, have no interest in colonizing the west bank and feel very negatively about settlements and settlers (i know this, because i have close friends who hate these fanatics)." Good to hear. But why do your elected governments keep doing it, again and again? As for your other point: I've heard this time and again. It's nonsense. Just think about it: Do you seriously think that, if you want to protect your civilians from a potentially hostile population*, the best strategy is to place a few hundred thousand of said civilians right in the middle of said population? Probably not. If this was about security, there would be no settlements. There would be military bases, maybe a few temporary homes for the families of stationed military personnel and attached civilians, and that would be it. This is how occupying forces enforce security in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq etc., and historically did in Germany, Japan etc. But look what happened after Gaza, you say. Let me again, just for the sake of argument, discard the – fairly reasonable idea – that the rocket attacks were largely a response to the blockade and other Israeli actions, such as "targeted killings". What was stopping the Palestinians from launching rockets before? A few thousand largely unarmed civilians? No – it was the security infrastructure which was in place around them. Is it possible to place such a security infrastructure without the settlements? Yes – it would actually make it a lot easier. So is there any benefit for security from the settlements? No – none at all. This is an important point to make, and it's painfully obvious: Settlements are not conductive to Israel's security – they are actually a liability, because they are placed in highly vulnerable positions and require huge efforts to protect. So from a cold, purely military, us-versus-them security viewpoint the settlements are foolish, dangerous nonsense! * Accepting just for the sake of argument the broad characterization of the Palestinians as such.
actually i don't disagree with anything you've said. i should have said that many israelis *view* settlements as a buffer especially after withdrawal from gaza led to rocket fire from their perspective. those viewpoints of settlements are subject to change (and many israelis know this), especially if israelis were to feel that they have a partner who does not view their existence as invalid (ie "racist, illegitimate zionist entity"). but, the end point really is that a two state agreement is possible as most israelis view peace as more of a benefit than the liability of settlements. again, i would really encourage you to talk to everyday israelis. you would be surprised that while a lot of them are disappointed and jaded with the peace process, a large reservoir of hope for peace and compromise on big issues (including jerusalem) exists.
Dan, There are 2 agendas here in the Israeli camp – the public and the leadership. As we both know, the leaders have an agenda to placate their base and more often than not, whip up fear and hysteria for political reasons. So while you may be right about what "most Israelis" think o believe, the sad fact is that they elected a leadership that has taken a much more extreme position.
You say that Israelis don't want to be seen as a "racist, illegitimate zionist entity". From your viewpoint, fair enough. You're not a racist, I guess you are at best a moderate zionist, you don't support continuous illegal landgrabs. Okay. And you say I should talk to ordinary Israelis to see that they are similarly moderate. I already did – and I am now, even if it is just via the wonders of technology – and sure, many of them are. If you say a majority sees it your way, I am skeptical… but I will accept the notion. The problem is: I am not your target audience. As you probably gathered, I am not a West Bank Palestinian. If I were, my opportunities to just go and talk to "everyday Israelis" would be very limited. But said Palestinians are those who you should convince that you are not a "racist, illegitimate zionist entity". And now let's see: Who are your representatives to the Palestinians? The answer: Racist, zionist illegal settlers. Yes, I know. Most settlers do not fit into this description. Most of them are "I just wanted some affordable housing, live and let live" variety. But these don't make waves. They live apart from the Palestinians. They scarcely interact with them – and Israel took great pains to ensure they won't need to. With few exceptions, radical zionist settlers are the only Israeli Jews who voluntarily interact with West Bank Palestinians – mostly by insulting and humiliating them, stealing or destroying their property or physically attacking them. What should Palestinians make of this? It is a fact – maybe unfortunate, but a fact – that we tend to judge groups by the behaviour of individuals who actually play a role in our lives. And the Israelis that play a role in Palestinian lives are not liberal, peace-loving people sitting in Tel Aviv cafes. Your "ambassadors" to the Palestinians are those who perpetrate, as Mr. Olmert said, "pogroms" on them. If you truly want the Palestinians – and the rest of the world – to see you in a different light, why do you let yourselves be represented by these comparably few racist bastards? Why are the few attempts to stop them so half-hearted? Why doesn't the IDF kick the shit out of them and why don't the moderates, including the moderate settlers, distance themselves from the radicals? This is what I don't understand.