Trending Topics:

Mainstream press embraces Netanyahu’s speech as supporting Kerry initiative

Israel/Palestine
on 76 Comments

Mainstream reporters are characterizing Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to the Israel lobby group the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC, yesterday as sounding a new and positive stance on John Kerry’s peace initiative.

This view was stated first by Wolf Blitzer yesterday on CNN, when he embraced the speech as a departure, and cited Netanyahu’s praise for Secretary of State John Kerry’s sleepless diplomacy. Then his guest Jane Harman of the Wilson Center (gosh they have a lot of diversity!) echoed that view in a hopeful manner, and suggested that Kerry and Netanyahu were at last taking up the challenge of the Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

This positive view of the speech soon became the conventional wisdom. It was on Politico, it’s in the New York Times. I’m sure it’s elsewhere, too. Before long people will be talking about Netanyahu’s incredibly warm support for John Kerry’s peace initiative.

Myself I think the mainstream reporters want to believe in the viability of the two-state solution so they’re embracing anything Netanyahu gives them. I did not hear any substantive change in Netanyahu’s position. He said that Jerusalem must remain undivided and he implicitly defended Jewish colonization of Bethlehem and Hebron and Jerusalem as Jews’ biblical birthright. His comments about Israeli forces in the West Bank suggest that Palestinians will never have real sovereignty in a viable state.

In fairness, Netanyahu was very positive about Kerry and pounded the theme of so-called economic peace– the view expressed by Shimon Peres and others that with peace Israel and Palestine could fuel economic upsurge throughout the Middle East and the Gulf. (As if people whose rightslessness has been compared to slavery can be bought off with material goods).

But let’s get to the conventional wisdom, then I’ll excerpt the speech, and you can read for yourself.

Politico sounded the positive theme yesterday:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tends to be a skeptic about the peace process, more known for voicing his concerns than his optimism. AIPAC tends to be a receptive audience for that skepticism and concern.

But fresh off what he called “very good talks” at the White House with President Barack Obama, Netanyahu instead made the case for the benefits of peace in his address to the conference of the top Israel issues lobbying group Tuesday.

The Times reflects that conventional wisdom today:

A day after meeting with President Obama, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday made an uncharacteristically enthusiastic pitch for a peace accord with the Palestinians, saying it would enable Israel to tighten ties with its Arab neighbors and “catapult the region forward” on issues like health, energy and education.

Here’s the speech. Here is the portion about the peace process:

Ladies and gentlemen, peace is Israel’s highest aspiration. I’m prepared to make a historic peace with our Palestinian neighbors — (applause) — a peace that would end a century of conflict and bloodshed. Peace would be good for us. Peace would be good for the Palestinians. But peace would also open up the possibility of establishing formal ties between Israel and leading countries in the Arab world.

Many Arab leaders — and believe me, this is a fact, not a hypothesis, it’s a fact — many Arab leaders today already realize that Israel is not their enemy, that peace with the Palestinians would turn our relations with them and with many Arab countries into open and thriving relationships. (Applause.)

The combination of Israeli innovation and Gulf entrepreneurship, to take one example — I think this combination could catapult the entire region forward. I believe that together, we can resolve actually some of the region’s water and energy problems. You know, Israeli has half the rainfall we had 65 years ago. We have 10 times the population. Our GDP has shot up, thank God — GDP per capita, up. So we have half the rainfall, 10 times the population, and our water use goes up. And which country in the world doesn’t have water problems? Yep. Israel. (Applause.)

Why? Because of technology, of innovation, of systems. We could make that available to our Arab neighbors throughout the region that is not exactly blessed with water. We could solve the water problems. We could solve the energy problems. We could improve agriculture. We could improve education with e-learning, health with diagnostics on the Internet. All of that is possible. We could better the lives of hundreds of millions. So we all have so much to gain from peace.

That’s why I want to thank the indomitable John Kerry. You know, New York — (applause) — and Tel-Aviv, they’re the cities that never sleep. John Kerry is definitely the secretary of state who never sleeps.

And — (applause) — and I’ve got the bags under my eyes to prove it. We’re working together, literally day and night, to seek a durable peace, a peace anchored in solid security arrangements and the mutual recognition of two nation-states. (Applause.)

Israel is the nation-state of the Jewish people — (applause) — where the civil rights of all citizens, Jews and non-Jews alike, are guaranteed. The land of Israel is the place where the identity of the Jewish people was forged.

It was in Hebron that Abraham blocked the cave of the Patriarchs and the Matriarchs. It was in Bethel that Jacob dreamed his dreams. It was in Jerusalem that David ruled his kingdom. We never forget that, but it’s time the Palestinians stopped denying history. (Applause.)

Just as Israel is prepared to recognize a Palestinian state, the Palestinians must be prepared to recognize a Jewish state. (Applause.) President Abbas, recognize the Jewish state, and in doing so, you would be telling your people, the Palestinians, that while we might have a territorial dispute, the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own is beyond dispute. (Applause.)

You would be telling Palestinians to abandon the fantasy of flooding Israel with refugees, or amputating parts of the Negev and the Galilee. In recognizing the Jewish state, you would finally making clear that you are truly prepared to end the conflict. So recognize the Jewish state. No excuses, no delays, it’s time. (Applause.)

Now, my friends, it may take years, it may take decades for this formal acceptance of Israel to filter down through all layers of Palestinian society. So if this piece is to be more than a brief interlude between wars, Israel needs long-term security arrangements on the ground to protect the peace and to protect Israel if the peace unravels. You see, those security arrangements would always be important, but they’re even more important and critical today when the entire Middle East is unraveling. Three years ago, our region was a very different place. Can anyone sitting here, anyone listening to us, can anyone tell me and be sure what the Middle East will look like five, 10, 20 years from now? We cannot bet the security of Israel on our fondest hopes.

You know, in the Middle East, that’s usually a losing bet. We should always hope for the best, but in the Middle East we have to be prepared for the worst. And despite the best of hopes, international peacekeeping forces sent to Lebanon, Gaza, Sinai, the Golan Heights, they didn’t prevent those areas from becoming armed strongholds against Israel.

If we reach an agreement, as I hope, with the Palestinians, I don’t delude myself. That peace will most certainly come under attack — constant attack by Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaida and others. And experience has shown that foreign peacekeepers — foreign peacekeeping forces, well, that they keep the peace only when there is peace.

But when they’re subjected to repeated attacks, those forces eventually go home. So as long as the peace is under assault, the only force that can be relied on to defend the peace and defend Israel is the force defending its own home — the Israeli Army, the brave soldiers of the IDF. (Applause.)

I’m going to reveal to you a secret. This position may not win me universal praise.

That occasionally happens when I (state ?) our positions. But I’m charged with protecting the security of my people, the people of Israel. And I will never gamble with the security of the one and only Jewish state. (Applause.)

So as we work in the coming days, in the coming weeks, to forge a durable peace, I hope that the Palestinian leadership will stand with Israel and the United States on the right side of the moral divide, the side of peace, reconciliation and hope.

You can clap. You want to encourage them to do that. (Applause.) I do, and I know you do too.

The danger in the mainstream spinning is that it is very reminiscent of the spinning of the Camp David process in 2000– in which a paltry Israeli offer was embraced by the American media as generous, and the Palestinians were blamed as rejectionists. I thought we were past that dynamic!

I’d also note that I found myself confused listening to Netanyahu: is his job to defend the people of Israel, or the Jewish people? This confusion is inherent in Israel’s definition of citizenship and nationality. Shira Robinson explores these contradictions in her new book Citizen Strangers; and in the next few days I am going to post an interview with Robinson explaining the origins of the problem in Israel’s foundational laws.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

76 Responses

  1. Citizen
    Citizen
    March 5, 2014, 11:12 am

    What’s the chance of an American, Jewish or otherwise, or, as is increasingly the case, a dual citizen of US & Israel, finding love with a Palestine supporter in a gay or lesbian relationship? Palestinians in general have not demonstrated the skill to use the calling card of American values, nor the ability to play huge donation money, to their agenda.They are still newbies at the Zionist game. We need to help them, for our own integrity and US and universal best interests.

  2. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 5, 2014, 11:22 am

    Waste of space.
    Israel hasn’t committed over 100bn dollars in money that should have been spent inside Israel to give it all up now.

    • Blownaway
      Blownaway
      March 5, 2014, 11:38 am

      This is part of a well coreographed dance. Bibi gets everything he wants in the framework, pretends that he has made sacrifices to agree to it, Obama looks like hes leaning on Bibi (wink wink) and the press plays along about warm n fuzzy Bibi falling over backwards for peace. Its Bibi not Binyamin the stern refusenik and the Palestininas come in to be the fall guys refusing a rump state that is soverign over grabage collection (maybe)

      • pabelmont
        pabelmont
        March 5, 2014, 12:48 pm

        Palestinians havfe been the fall guys forever. It’s a wonderful game! Abbas must find a way to EXPLAIN why he cannot abandon his people’s interests. He must give a speech which examines the “framework” piece by piece.

        As to Jewish state, he can ask how many countries which have “recognized Israel” have “recognized Israel as a Jewish State” or “recognized Israel as THE Jewish State”. I believe the answer is ZERO. It’s a special game for Palestinians. And it ignores the interest Palestinians still have (Palestinian citizens of Israel, PRoR) in a bi-national multi-confessional state of Israel. He may cut off a lot of funds — and cut his own collaborationist throat to do it — but it should be done, maybe in a speech at the UN.

        He can explain it. and then, when the time for agreement has expired, go to ICC. I absolutely don’t think he should pretend to “accept” any “framework” which is obviously unacceptable to him. Nor to let more time go by.

        Obama said the peace process is dead “if the present negotiations fail”. He didn’t say that this was so “only if Israel wrecks them.”

        I think we are in the end-game for Israel now.

        Nice speech, BB! Nice try.

      • jon s
        jon s
        March 6, 2014, 4:08 am

        pabelmont, On May 15 1948, Israel declared its independence, as a Jewish state. (see http://www.brijnet.org/israel50/decl-eng.htm)
        SUBSEQUENTLY Israel was recognized by most of the world, and admitted to the UN. Stands to reason it was recognized as a Jewish state.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 6, 2014, 11:02 am

        On May 15 1948, Israel declared its independence, as a Jewish state. (see link to brijnet.org) SUBSEQUENTLY Israel was recognized by most of the world, and admitted to the UN.

        Be careful, more states have recognized Palestine than have recognized Israel.

        In addition, Israel has taken steps which undermine the legitimacy of the recognition that states have extended to it. It’s a matter of public record that the Peoples Council had to incorporate many of the clauses contained in the declaration, including the one regarding “full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex;” because the LoN and UN had conditioned termination of mandate regimes on the new state’s willingness to accept a formal undertaking to protect minority rights.

        The verbatim transcripts of the UN General Assembly Ad Hoc hearings on Israel’s membership application are available online. Many of the members refused to acknowledge the termination of the mandate or Israel as a proper state with sovereign equality, until it furnished evidence that it had supplied the required declaration on the rights of minorities. The representative of Israel affirmed on at least two occasions that the declaration regarding the establishment of the state of Israel had been promulgated as a fundamental law of state in accordance with the terms of the UN resolution of 29 November 1947.

        In 1950, the State of Israel repudiated the declarations and undertakings that its representative had made on the record during those hearings. It stated that, although Israel had offered to supply a declaration, it had been admitted as a member of the UN without having done so. Subsequently, the Knesset and Supreme Court ruled that the clause in the declaration regarding equality for non-Jews is not a fundamental law or legally binding.

        That sort of dishonest behavior and violation of international norms calls into question the validity of the recognition by other states that you are bragging about.

      • talknic
        talknic
        March 6, 2014, 11:46 am

        jon s ” On May 15 1948, Israel declared its independence, as a Jewish state.

        “TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAELhttp://pages.citebite.com/t2p1c9k7r0nde

        “Stands to reason it was recognized as a Jewish state”

        “The United States recognizes the provisional government
        de facto authority of the new State of Israelhttp://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/israel/large/documents/newPDF/49.pdf

        “SUBSEQUENTLY Israel was recognized by most of the world, and admitted to the UN. “

        Uh huh. Nothing about a ‘Jewish State’ in the UN admission to the UN

        Having received the report of the Security Council on the application of Israel for membership in the United Nations,

        Noting that, in the judgment of the Security Council, Israel is a peace-loving State and is able and willing to carry out the obligations contained in the Charter,

        Noting that the Security Council has recommended to the General Assembly that it admit Israel to membership in the United Nations,

        Noting furthermore the declaration by the State of Israel that it “unreservedly accepts the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertakes to honour them from the day when it becomes a Member of the United Nations”,

        Recalling its resolutions of 29 November 1947 and 11 December 1948 and taking note of the declarations and explanations made by the representatives of the Government of Israel before the Ad Hoc Political Committee in respect of the implementation of the said resolutions,

        The General Assembly

        Acting in discharge of its functions under Article 4 of the Charter and rule 125 of its rules of procedure,

        1. Decides that Israel is a peace-loving State which accepts the obligations contained in the Charter and is able and willing to carry out those obligations;

        2. Decides to admit Israel to membership in the United Nations. http://www.mfa.gov.il/mfa/foreignpolicy/mfadocuments/yearbook1/pages/admission%20of%20israel%20to%20the%20united%20nations-%20general.aspx

        Russia 17 May 1948 Letter from Mr. Molotov stated:

        Confirming receipt of your telegram of May 16, in which you inform the Government of the USSR of the proclamation, on the basis of the resolution of the United Nations Assembly of November 29, 1947, of the creation in Palestine of the independent State of Israel and make re-quest for the recognition of the State of Israel and its provisional government by the USSR. I inform yon in this letter that the Govern-ment of the USSR has decided to recognize officially the State of Israel and its Provisional Government. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2193961?uid=3737536&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21101452858741

      • eljay
        eljay
        March 6, 2014, 11:53 am

        >> On May 15 1948, Israel declared its independence, as a Jewish state.

        “Jewish State” is a religion-supremacist construct. Israel has no right to exist as a supremacist “Jewish State”.

        No state has a right to exist as a supremacist state. And no-one should be expected or required to recognize or accept any state as a supremacist state.

        For a guy who claims not to be a Zio-supremacist, you sure do spend a lot of time advocating for, justifying and defending Zio-supremacism.

  3. Donald
    Donald
    March 5, 2014, 12:43 pm

    He’s figured out that all an Israeli PM has to say he’s pro-peace, praise the American President, and the MSM will give him the benefit of the doubt. Up to this point Netanyahu has been abrasive–a change of tone is all he needed to change his image.

    Substance, of course, doesn’t matter with the dummies in the press.

    • jon s
      jon s
      March 6, 2014, 1:32 pm

      Hostage, I don’t have to “be careful” , because I have no problem with the entire world recognizing Palestine. I don’t see it as a zero-sum game: that what’s good for the Palestinians is necessarily bad for Israelis.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 6, 2014, 7:27 pm

        Very true. A prosperous Palestine would be a good thing for Israel.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 6, 2014, 9:28 pm

        Hostage, I don’t have to “be careful” , because I have no problem with the entire world recognizing Palestine.

        I think you are missing my point. More states recognized the statehood of the PLO than that of Israel at a time when it still advocated a single state in all the territory of the former Palestine mandate. So there was no implicit recognition that there was a “Jewish state”. For example in 1977, Dr W. Tom Mallison pointed that out in his testimony to the Senate in rebuttal to Yehuda Blum’s testimoney about the “Missing Reversioner” theory:

        One must conclude that Dr. Blum is unaware of the consequences of an inquiry concerning title to territory. The inadequacy of his analysis is further emphasized by his statement that, in addition to the de facto existence of a state, recognition is the basis for the title of a state and its lawfulness. If so, the State of Israel is in serious trouble under his analysis because at the present time more states recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization than recognize the State of Israel.

        — See page 50 of the pdf file @ http://www.loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/00139297647.pdf

        When the PLO, the ANC, and SWAPO were first recognized as national liberation movements, they were invited to become UN observers. At the time, that privilege was reserved strictly for states and was not extended to any non-governmental organizations.

        The UN Economic and Social Council is one of the organs established by the Charter itself. It pointedly refused to alter its rules in order to admit the PLO as a “non-state” member after Israel and the United States objected that only states were eligible. After the UN Legal department confirmed that non-state entities could not be members, the UN Economic and Social Council voted to admit the PLO as a full member. The US and Israel immediately started waging a war of threats and blackmail over implicit or explicit recognition of Palestinian statehood by other UN organs. When the UN Secretariat caved-in and listed Palestine as an “observer entity”, it was an empty jesture, since its own subsidiary organ, the ESCWA (a part of the Secretariat itself) continued to publish and catalog official rules on UN letterhead which declared that Palestine was a full member state of that organ:

        ESCWA comprises 13 States, viz., Bahrain, Egypt, lraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Syrian Arab Republic, the United Arab Emirates and Yemen.

        link to ESCWA.un.org

  4. Woody Tanaka
    Woody Tanaka
    March 5, 2014, 12:45 pm

    The US media are complicit in these crimes. Benji’s subtext is clear: “I am willing to accept abject surrender of the Palestinians and why won’t they put themselves at the mercy of the zionists?” A decent media would respond, “Probably because you burn their fields and murder their children, even when they do nothing to you but demand you leave them be. Don’t you think you need to give them assurances that your depravity and criminality would stop before they might make any deal with you devils??” Of course, the bootlicker, Kerry, should be making that point, too.

  5. seafoid
    seafoid
    March 5, 2014, 1:46 pm

    “U.S. Rep. Bachmann: American Jews sold out Israel
    Minnesota congresswoman says U.S. Jews have prioritized Obama’s ambitions over the best interests of Israel.”
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.578140

    Too bad only 40% of American Jews believe the fairy story about G-d giving Palestine to the Jews.

    What Bachmann’s constituency and Israeli Jews have in common is that education comes way down the list of priorities. It’s much easier to fool ignorant people.

  6. gingershot
    gingershot
    March 5, 2014, 2:18 pm

    The Israeli Lobby is NO LONGER tenable in the US.

    I declare it

  7. eljay
    eljay
    March 5, 2014, 2:23 pm

    U.S. Rep. Bachmann: American Jews sold out Israel
    Minnesota congresswoman says U.S. Jews have prioritized Obama’s ambitions over the best interests of Israel.

    So…according to Ms. Bachmann, Americans of the Jewish faith should place the interests of their own country, their homeland, below the interests of a foreign state. Interesting.

    Why is she working so hard to delegitimize the American-ness of American Jews? Why does she hate American Jews so much?

  8. Walid
    Walid
    March 5, 2014, 2:29 pm

    “Our GDP has shot up, thank God — GDP per capita, up. So we have half the rainfall, 10 times the population, and our water use goes up. And which country in the world doesn’t have water problems? Yep. Israel. (Applause.)”

    Of course, Israel doesn’t have water problems; 3/4 of the water it uses is stolen. Makes you wonder how the GDP would have actually fared without the American handouts, the stolen land, the blackmailing money and so on.

    • seafoid
      seafoid
      March 5, 2014, 4:09 pm

      http://eng.babelmed.net/letteratura/251-palestine/2513-tomorrow-will-be-worse-amira-hass.html

      ” She is surprised how in Israel, restaurants and cafés are full of people, in peace. Everyday though, she writes to remind them. «Tomorrow will be worse». This kind of title provokes questions. Lili Gruber asks Amira if this choice of title was influenced by her own personal pessimism or from her analysis of the current situation. Amira replies simply: «I believe that this sentence is right, and hope it will become untrue». Amira Hass is an optimist
      When an Israeli soldier asks her at a check point «What are you doing here ?» she simply replies «What are you doing here ?».”

  9. gingershot
    gingershot
    March 5, 2014, 2:40 pm

    MONDOWEISS ALERT: FYI FYI

    First Commentator DESTROYS/HUMILIATES Beinart’s breaking Haaretz Article

    Bienart says ‘Settlers aren’t bad people’ – and gets IMMEDIATLEY TAKEN TO THE CLEANERS

    DESTROYED by the counterargument along the lines of – ‘yeah just like Nazis, just a little Liberal Zionist-bit pregnant’

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.578153#article_comments

  10. Walid
    Walid
    March 5, 2014, 2:46 pm

    Do Jews actually believe what Netanyahu is saying or are they just making believe they do?

    • just
      just
      March 5, 2014, 3:08 pm

      A nugget from Haaretz:

      “Senior Palestinian official Hanan Ashrawi said that Netanyahu went to Washington “ready to allocate blame without, in any way, showing any sign of willingness to do the right thing — to stop settlement activities, accept ’67 borders, accept signed agreements, end illegal actions and move ahead. Instead, he is reiterating his ideological condition of recognition of a Jewish state.”

      Also reacting to the speech, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog, the head of Israel’s opposition, said that he agreed with the prime minister that security measure were a necessary condition for any agreement and that the economic potential of peace could “advance Israel into areas in which we have never been before.”

      However, Herzog added that he “believes less and less that Netanyahu can or wants to be the one who leads us to a diplomatic solution.”

      He added that he “opposes with all my heart the boycott movement against Israel, but unfortunately it is turning into a strategic threat and the lack of diplomatic progress can only assist it.” ”

      link to haaretz.com

      Seems that some no longer believe him to be the messianic peacemaker.

      (as if…………)

  11. Citizen
    Citizen
    March 5, 2014, 3:03 pm

    Latest Zionist editing of Obama by his Jewish Zionist Handlers:
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/03/04/aipac-public-enemy-number-1/

  12. Kathleen
    Kathleen
    March 5, 2014, 3:53 pm

    MSM setting up the front that Netanyahu did everything he could to make peace. He was so reasonable. It was the Palestinians who undermined the effort again. U.S. MSM still going along with the fraud.

    • Donald
      Donald
      March 5, 2014, 4:59 pm

      “MSM setting up the front that Netanyahu did everything he could to make peace. He was so reasonable. It was the Palestinians who undermined the effort again.”

      Unfortunately I think there’s some truth to this. The only reason Netanyahu has gotten some bad press in the US is that he’s been openly arrogant and argumentative with Obama–all he has to do is change the tone, not the substance, and it’s back to business as usual.

    • just
      just
      March 5, 2014, 5:20 pm

      The MSM can lie all they want– it. will. not. work. this. time.

      Just what have the Palestinians done to subvert/sabotage peace? Nothing, zip, nada.

      On the other hand, the Israelis have done much to deliberately provoke Palestinians, destroy Palestinians by any means at their disposal, and work very, very hard at preventing peace and justice.

      The MSM will have to get on board, or become even more irrelevant than they already are. Eventually, the BDS movement will affect them as well. I fear that Congress will be the last one aboard the train of truth.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 5, 2014, 5:34 pm

        Israel can’t procrastinate indefinitely. The game is up for that. Zionism is bad faith and the Europeans have figured it out.

        The FT is right. Either a decent offer or Israel faces a very bleak future. Bibi is the wrong man to lead Israel. He can’t face down the settlers. He’s one of their Svengalis.

      • just
        just
        March 5, 2014, 5:46 pm

        “He can’t face down the settlers. He’s one of their Svengalis.”

        Brilliantly put, seafoid.

        I can’t think of anyone that is the “right” person to lead Israel, though. To pull it out of the abyss/morass may be impossible for any single human… it’s gonna take a Herculean effort, and I just don’t think that there is the will among Israelis. The ‘will’ might come from meaningful, and enforced international sanctions. I’ve waited all of my adult life for them.

      • seafoid
        seafoid
        March 6, 2014, 1:42 am

        They need someone like Stephen Elop, the guy who came into Nokia after the share price tanked, and told the staff that the dream was over, that the company was like a burning platform . No beating around the bush. Get real.

        Or Winston Wolf from Pulp fiction

        http://www.screened.com/winston-wolf/15-317/quotes/

        Assessing the situation with the Palestinians in Greater Israel ]

        Okay,first thing: you two. [to Bibi and the Dersh ] Take the body of Zionism , stick it in the trunk. Now Alan , this looks to be a pretty domesticated house. That would lead me to believe that in the garage or under the sink, you got a bunch of moral guidelines , shit like that?

        Yeah, yeah, Mr. Wolf. Buried under the carpet

        Winston Wolf Good. What I need you fellas to do is to take those moral guidelines and clean the inside of your brains . I’m talking fast, fast, fast. You need to go in the back amygdala , scoop up all those little pieces of hasbara . Get it out of there. Wipe down the nerve endings. Now, when it comes to thinking it don’t gotta be spic and span. You don’t need to eat off it. Just give it a good once-over. What you gotta focus on are the really messy parts. The pools of bullshit that have collected, you gotta soak that shit up!

  13. jon s
    jon s
    March 5, 2014, 4:41 pm

    Freezing the video to make it look like Netanyahu was giving the straight-arm fascist salute: a cheap shot.

    Unlike the Hizbullah fascists. who use it for real:
    https://www.google.co.il/search?q=hizbullah&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=y5cXU7iGIOjd4QTT1YD4Dw&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1366&bih=643#q=hizbullah+salute&tbm=isch

  14. German Lefty
    German Lefty
    March 5, 2014, 6:24 pm

    peace is Israel’s highest aspiration. I’m prepared to make a historic peace with our Palestinian neighbors
    Palestinians are NOT Israel’s neighbours. They are the indigenous people of the area of Israel.

    We’re working together, literally day and night, to seek a durable peace, a peace anchored in solid security arrangements and the mutual recognition of two nation-states.
    But what about justice? No mention of justice. What Netanyahu says is that he wants peace … on condition that Palestinians give up all their rights.

    President Abbas, recognize the Jewish state, and in doing so, you would be telling your people, the Palestinians, that while we might have a territorial dispute, the right of the Jewish people to a state of their own is beyond dispute.
    Around 20% of Israelis ARE Palestinians. As Prime Minister of Israel, Netanyahu is supposed to represent these people, too. They are not represented by Abbas.

    But then again, Zionists don’t care about facts.

    Andrea Mitchell Reports 03/04/2014 http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/netanyahu-ready-for-peace-deal-181974595708
    The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd 03/04/2014 http://www.msnbc.com/the-daily-rundown/watch/tough-negotiations-needed-for-mideast-peace-181760579771
    Andrea Mitchell Reports 03/03/2014 http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell-reports/watch/obama-urges-netanyahu-to-end-conflict-180383811603
    The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd 03/03/2014 http://www.msnbc.com/the-daily-rundown/watch/obama-offers-tough-love-to-israeli-pm-180359747826
    An older segment on BDS:
    The Daily Rundown with Chuck Todd 02/06/14 http://www.msnbc.com/the-daily-rundown/watch/deep-dive-boycott-backlash-139836483864

  15. James Canning
    James Canning
    March 5, 2014, 7:08 pm

    Good idea: John Kerry and Israel should “take up the 2002 Saudi peace plan”. About time.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 6, 2014, 8:44 am

      @Canning – The Saudi Peace of the Cemeteries Plan

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 6, 2014, 5:08 pm

        Depends upon whether Jews should be allowed to remain in Palestine, provided they pay adequate compensation. That they are on the “wrong” side of the wall is something they need to correct, if that is their concern. (Assuming wall relocated to Green Line)

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 7, 2014, 2:36 am

        Worthless. That Green Line is only based on right of conquest; illegitimate; both sides of that wall are wrong. All of Palestine including the Zionist entity is illegally settled by the Zionists. The Partition proposal was rejected and no independent Palestinians have had an opportunity to decide.
        Meanwhile the only peace will be that of the cemeteries, unless a miracle or a major international conflagration brings logic to the Zionists.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 7, 2014, 5:23 am

        The Partition proposal was rejected and no independent Palestinians have had an opportunity to decide.

        FYI, after the Presidential and Legislative elections in 1996, the representative of Palestine to the United Nations notified both the Security Council (S/1999/334) and General Assembly (A/53/879) that:

        since the strategic decision to forge a peace on the basis of coexistence, resolution 181 (II) has become acceptable. The resolution provides the legal basis for the existence of both the Jewish and the
        Arab States in Mandated Palestine.

        http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/53/879

        The letter questioned the basis for the application of Israeli law in the territory beyond that allocated to Israel under the partition plan, but the PLO has conducted negotiations and accepted interim recognition on the basis of the 4 June 1967 lines.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 7, 2014, 3:54 pm

        All Arab countries agreed to accept the Green Line as border of Palestine. Great post.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 7, 2014, 9:37 am

        @Hostage – ” the representative of Palestine to the United Nations”
        I didn’t just stick the word “independent” there as decoration. That Representative is an Israelian prisoner and a slave. Throw your mind back and try to accept any “representative” from a domesticated “national” body residing in Nazi-occupied areas (or Nazi-controlled, like southern France or Salò) as representing anything. When the power structures start to change, there will be independent and armed representation and no one guarantees that the popular will will be to the liking of Western liberals. There was no acceptance of the PP yet.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 7, 2014, 5:33 pm

        @Canning – “All Arab countries agreed to accept the Green Line as border of Palestine.”
        Big Fat Hairy Deal. Not worth a rat’s ass. We’ve heard it from the Zionists for a long time and, you know what? None of them are an independent, armed and sovereign Palestine.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 8, 2014, 2:50 pm

        @Puppies – – Surely you are well aware most of the fanatical Zionists do not want an independent Palestine. Palestine consisting of WB and Gaza is ANATHEMA to them.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 7, 2014, 6:12 pm

        Throw your mind back and try to accept any “representative” from a domesticated “national” body residing in Nazi-occupied areas (or Nazi-controlled, like southern France or Salò) as representing anything.

        The analogy doesn’t fly. The Palestinians were represented in the government of Jordan that signed the armistice agreement which established the Green Line in the first place. The UN Mediator accepted it on behalf of the UN organization. The Security Council also approved it and directed the parties to implement and observe it, pending a final settlement.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 7, 2014, 6:22 pm

        Puppies – – The sense I have is that the Palestinians living in the WB would accept a Palestine of WB and Gaza. Even if this would stick in your craw.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 7, 2014, 10:17 pm

        @Hostage – Now you’re moving. The armistice is one thing, 181 with a legal basis for the Zionist entity is a whole nother thing. And somehow you’re begging the question as it’s precisely the representativity of captive leaders that is put in doubt.
        By the way, there is an armistice line but there is no armistice. The war is ongoing full force. One can carry imaginary assumptions only so far.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 8, 2014, 2:47 pm

        @Puppies – – How do you think the Mandate for Palestine was created? By something other than “right of conquest”?

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 8, 2014, 6:02 am

        @Hostage – Now you’re moving. The armistice is one thing, 181 with a legal basis for the Zionist entity is a whole nother thing.

        I’m showing that the Palestinians have elected governments that accepted both. All your talk about independence is nonsense. The Palestinians argued their case in the ICJ over Israeli objections, and they went to the ICC, UNESCO, and the UN for votes on Palestine’s status and UN membership over US and Israeli objections. Opinion polls show that the overwhelming majority of Palestinians supported all of those initiatives.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 8, 2014, 2:45 pm

        An interesting angle here is that most Palestinians in the WB want to get on with their lives in their own country, even if only the WB and Gaza, but Puppies rejects their programme.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 8, 2014, 8:33 am

        @Canning – “The sense I have is that the Palestinians living in the WB would accept a Palestine of WB and Gaza.”
        Well duh! Try telling me “your purse or your life” while holding a machine gun to my head, while you trumpet to the whole world that I generously agreed to your proposal.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 8, 2014, 1:46 pm

        Fair statement, that Israel has a gun aimed at the head of the Palestinians. But you overlook the fact the gunman is NOT willing to accept Palestine of WB and Gaza. Repeat: Not willing.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 9, 2014, 12:22 am

        @Canning – Of course! So all you can think of is what the Zionists will of their free will “give”. Oh yeeah. Can’t you study their program expressed over longer than a hundred years, both explicitly in program discussions and declaration and in the facts? They want all of Palestine, plus southern Lebanon and Syria and parts of Transjordan, *without the owners of the place, to be finally expelled or exterminated. They have never gone a single inch back. Anyone who expects Zionists (including those of your “liberal” group) to give in in their realization of this program must be asleep.
        Even if they weren’t as reliably hard as the Zionists, no one ever has made any concessions at all if not seriously threatened.
        Of course anything at all will be obtained by a lot of violence. The situation is changing and one can be optimistic with regard to change: these babies cannot survive without starting wars and one will be one too many for them.
        Meanwhile, giving away any of the Palestinian rights (even if they were yours to give away) is a hanging offense. Conversely, for a Zionist or “liberal” Zionist sympathizer like you, an act of propaganda.

        Also, of course the Mandate is an act of conquest. No discussion about that, but it was mitigated by the fictitious obligation to return the country to its inhabitants. The Partition proposal was juat that, a proposal, and we never heard a response from the owners of the land. For good reason.

        As for all Palestinians being cool with giving away their birthright so they can “get on with life”, a life that will be unchanged as long as the Zionist entity exists as a racialist conqueror state, with big bad Puppies deciding on their behalf “not to get on with life”, you’re full of it. “It” being cheap, mindless propaganda. There is every shade of political demands. A people is not an individual, and no vote is possible before lifting entirely all interference and occupation. As proved by Gaza, past experience, and unobserved UN principles.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 9, 2014, 2:15 pm

        @Puppies – – I obviously think it imperative to contain Israeli expansionism within the pre-1967 borders. Your solution is to seek to get rid of Israel altogether, which I think is pursuing something simply not possible to achieve.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 9, 2014, 8:24 am

        Worthless. That Green Line is only based on right of conquest; illegitimate; both sides of that wall are wrong.

        You’ve forgotten that the armistice agreements were adopted after the UN demanded the establishment of permanent cease fire lines. They were intended to protect the lives and property of people with actual flesh in the game from being obliterated as a result of ruthless determinations regarding “military necessity”. Your opinion about their legitimacy hardly matters, since the rules regarding armistice agreements are part of customary international law reflected in the Hague rules of 1907 and Articles 7 and 8 of the 4th Geneva Convention.

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 9, 2014, 2:11 pm

        Usual sound analysis from Hostage.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        March 9, 2014, 8:49 am

        puppies:

        . That Green Line is only based on right of conquest; illegitimate; both sides of that wall are wrong.

        Not all historical wrongs can be made completely right, unfortunately.

        All of Palestine including the Zionist entity is illegally settled by the Zionists.

        And Israel subsequently became a legally recognized state, and its citizens have rights independent of how their state came into existence. How would you propose that be undone?

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 9, 2014, 2:10 pm

        One might ask what became of the east half of Poland. When Germany invaded western Poland, the Soviet Union invaded eastern Poland. And annexed it. Are the Poles demanding its return? Obviously not.

      • Sibiriak
        Sibiriak
        March 9, 2014, 9:14 am

        James Canning :

        How do you think the Mandate for Palestine was created? By something other than “right of conquest”?

        Good point.

        Cf. UN Special Committee on Report to the General Assembly (1947):

        180. The spirit which prevailed at the creation of the Mandate for Palestine was explained by Lord Balfour at the opening of the eighteenth session of the Council of the League of Nations as follows:

        […] “Remember that a mandate is a self-imposed limitation by the conquerors on the sovereignty which they obtained over conquered territories. It is imposed by the Allied and Associated Powers themselves in the interests of what they conceived to be the general welfare of mankind and they have asked the League of Nations to assist them in seeing that this policy should be carried into effect. But the League of Nations is not the author of the policy, but its instrument.

        http://unispal.un.org/UNISPAL.NSF/5ba47a5c6cef541b802563e000493b8c/07175de9fa2de563852568d3006e10f3?OpenDocument

      • James Canning
        James Canning
        March 9, 2014, 2:07 pm

        Thanks, Sibiriak.

      • LeaNder
        LeaNder
        March 9, 2014, 11:05 am

        unless a miracle or a major international conflagration brings logic to the Zionists.

        that wouldn’t actually be bad idea for some people on both sides of the issue here, puppies. ;)

        For whatever reason one of my favorite Shakespeare passages come to mind often in this context, maybe since it is about duels and thus the necessity to put, as Hostage put it somewhere recently, “flesh in the game”.

        Jaques (lord). Can you nominate in order now the degrees of the lie?

        Touchstone. O, sir, we quarrel in print by the book, as you have books for good manners. I will name you the degrees. The first, the Retort Courteous; the second, the Quip Modest; the third, the Reply Churlish; the fourth, the Reproof Valiant; the fifth, theCountercheck Quarrelsome; the sixth, the Lie with Circumstance; the seventh, the Lie Direct. All these you may avoid but the Lie Direct; and you may avoid that too with an If. I knew when seven justices could not take up a quarrel; but when the parties were met themselves, one of them thought but of an If, as: ‘If you said so, then I said so.’ And they shook hands, and swore brothers. Your If is the only peace-maker; much virtue in If.

        The Partition proposal was rejected and no independent Palestinians have had an opportunity to decide.

        Meaning what exactly? One state? Or somehow turn back the clock?

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 9, 2014, 10:19 pm

        @ Hostage, Canning, Sibiriak & Leander – All of you are bunching up to bring lots of different and thoughtful observations but you insistently overlook the main point: the Zionists will not ever make any concessions and if they pretend to, they’ll take them back before the ink is dry. There will be no relenting before they have cleansed all of “Greater Israel”, which includes somewhat more than mandate Palestine. By hook or by crook. Meaning, if expulsions and driving-away tactics do not work, not-too-covert genocide. Whoever thinks different is welcome to his opinion but that opinion is ridiculous after observing them for over 100 years. There will never be two sovereign states because it never was in their program. There will never be anything but more and more landgrab and ethnic cleansing. Tell me how meaningful it is to continue making absurd concessions when you know you won’t obtain anything in exchange, ever, and they’ll continue bulldozing to total victory. As for enforcing some kind of law on the Zionists, sweet dreams. How smart is it to continue doing the same thing yet again? Their word is worth shit, their armistices are no such thing and their peace talks, a tripartite comedy with two sockpuppets of theirs, the US and the ex-PA, are a total fake not even worth discussing.

      • Hostage
        Hostage
        March 10, 2014, 7:32 am

        @ Hostage, Canning, Sibiriak & Leander – All of you are bunching up to bring lots of different and thoughtful observations but you insistently overlook the main point: the Zionists will not ever make any concessions and if they pretend to,

        I’ve explained in the past why it’s important to point-out Zionist violations of customary and conventional international laws, including the rules regarding armistice agreements in Hague IV of 1907 and provisional measures adopted by the Security Council under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.

        They represent norms of customary international law and are accepted by so many people across different cultures that there is an objective moral consensus — or the closest thing to it — that violating them is not merely wrong, but also criminal acts of aggression.

      • puppies
        puppies
        March 10, 2014, 10:02 am

        @Hostage – Absolutely. You won’t get an objection to that, ever.
        What about enforcement?

  16. just
    just
    March 6, 2014, 5:29 am

    @seafoid says:
    March 6, 2014 at 1:42 am

    Perfect!

  17. Donald
    Donald
    March 6, 2014, 7:19 am

    The NYT editorial page just proved that not all of the MSM is as bad as we think–times are changing. (Pun not intended, but it is appropriate.) The leading editorial expressed skepticism about Netanyahu and his speech and made reference to Obama’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, where Obama was skeptical of Israel’s intentions from a liberal Zionist pro 2SS perspective.

    While I still think parts of the MSM are eager to embrace any opportunity to blame the Palestinians, Netanyahu has apparently lost the NYT editors.

    • puppies
      puppies
      March 6, 2014, 8:40 am

      @Donald – Netanyahu spurned them but there’s no proof that he lost them. The NYT knows when to release an article mildly critical of Zionism and to even have the Blue Mon surprise in its Magazine. How else could a not entirely sponsored propaganda rag survive?

    • James Canning
      James Canning
      March 6, 2014, 6:29 pm

      That Bibi tends to rant and distort the facts right and left, is all-too-obvious to the NYT.

  18. Hostage
    Hostage
    March 6, 2014, 8:16 am

    Netanyahu has apparently lost the NYT editors.

    Netanyahu decided to burn his bridges with the New York Times when, among other things, they published an Op-Ed by Abbas that told the unvarnished truth about the events of 1948 and Friedman said the applause during his speech to Congress was “bought and paid for by the Israel lobby”. See PM adviser’s letter to ‘New York Times’: Netanyahu’s senior adviser Ron Dermer writes letter to ‘New York Times’ explaining why PM “respectfully declined” to write op-ed piece. http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/PM-advisers-letter-to-New-York-Times

  19. piotr
    piotr
    March 6, 2014, 10:01 am

    BDS is only one of innumerable savage hordes that roam on the wrong side of the moral divide. One of he newest are “camel deniers”, sadly assisted by archaeologists from Tel Aviv who estimated the time of camel domestication as close to 900 BCE. “This would be almost 1,000 years later than the time of the patriarchs, when camels first appear in the Bible. The most memorable account is the story of Abraham’s servant, Eliezer, in Genesis 24, who is sent by Abraham to find a wife for his son Isaac. He finds Rebecca, who not only draws water from a well to quench Eliezer’s thirst, but also waters his 10 camels.”

    It is nice to see the agnostic Prime Minister to defend the literal truth of Genesis account.

    • MHughes976
      MHughes976
      March 6, 2014, 12:45 pm

      I’m supposed to be on holiday and planning a week without controversies, but would just like to add that I think it makes a great deal of sense to put camel trains, which could supply armies as well as permit trade, into the times following 900 BCE. There seems to have been no serious Iraqi/Assyrian intervention in Palestine before then, but around 850 the Assyrians appear in force, first to be seen off by Ahab at Qarqar and later to make their historic alliance with Jehu.

    • Bumblebye
      Bumblebye
      March 6, 2014, 1:28 pm

      @piotr
      I suppose the camels, like the patriarchs, coulda been extra long-lived? I mean, if these guys were a few centuries old, couldn’t the camels be too?

  20. American
    American
    March 6, 2014, 1:00 pm

    God save the Queen, the world, and all us children from those who believe the bible is real history.

Leave a Reply