An American translation of Netanyahu’s racist get out the vote speech

Thanks to you and Katie Halper, Annie.

I think this is as good a place as any to quote this:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not sufficiently clarify his position on a Palestinian state during his phone call with U.S. President Barack Obama, the White House said on Friday.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said at a daily briefing that the administration “has doubts” whether Netanyahu’s remarks to U.S. media in the past several days – in which he said he does support a two-state solution – represent the prime minister’s “true view.”

Earnest was asked at the briefing whether Netanyahu clarified his position during the phone call with Obama on Thursday. “I would say that was not the result of the call,” Earnest replied cynically, adding that it is unclear which of Netanyahu’s statements on a Palestinian state should be believed.

“The divergent comments by the prime minister call into question his commitment to a two-state solution,” Earnest added. “He indicated a weakness in his commitment [to a two-state solution]… And I think that’s putting it charitably.”

Criticism of Netanyahu’s remarks against a Palestinian state was also leveled by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, who spoke on the phone with the Israeli premier on Friday. According to a statement released by the UN, Ban asked Netanyahu to recommit himself to a two-state solution. “The two-state solution is the only way forward,” Ban told Netanyahu.

European diplomats say German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande relayed similar messages to Netanyahu in phone calls on Thursday and Friday. French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius released a statement Thursday following the elections in Israel, stressing that France expects the new Israeli government to “show responsibility and take swift steps to allow the Palestinian Authority to function properly and to renew negotiations over a comprehensive and final peace agreement.”…….”

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.648059?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

The fixation on a 2 state solution is a little “funny”, but it is what everybody says they’ve been committed to all these years. The fact that they’re not satisfied with Netanyahu’s backtracking does show that they acknowledge that he’s been lying right along. (and so were his predecessors~ all of them!)

The citizens of all of these complicit countries have to hold their pols’/governments’ collective feet to the fire.

As for:

“But the issue here is that Netanyahu did exactly this in 2015, and in a place like Israel it works. Why is that? And what does it say about the supposed shared values between Israel and the United States?”

I can refer folks to Avigail Abarbanel:

https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2015/03/netanyahu-won-what

and Dan Cohen:

https://mondoweiss.mystagingwebsite.com/2015/03/witnessing-american-borderlands

I recommend reading the whole (disturbing) article about Ben Carson, but this is pertinent to MW. (h/t Max B.)

“……..Carson called up Bloomberg’s Dave Weigel today as part of the mop-up effort. “I’m in the process of acquiring a lot of information,” he said. “It’s like being in medical school–you acquire a lot of information, you learn very quickly, you learn to process that information.” Hear that? Learning the basics of foreign policy a couple years before you’ll be in charge of global foreign policy is a lot like being in medical school. He became a good doctor, so there’s no doubt he’d be a swell President of the United States.
…
Carson also weighed in on the Israeli election and the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state. “We need to look at fresh ideas,” he says, which is something that politicians who aren’t familiar with the details over a certain issue like to say. What sort of #innovative think-leadership would Carson bring to the Israel-Palestine conflict?

“We need to look at fresh ideas,” said Carson. “I don’t have any problem with the Palestinians having a state, but does it need to be within the confines of Israeli territory? Is that necessary, or can you sort of slip that area down into Egypt? Right below Israel, they have some amount of territory, and it can be adjacent. They can benefit from the many agricultural advances that were made by Israel, because if you fly over that area, you can easily see the demarcation between Egypt and Israel, in terms of one being desert and one being verdant. Technology could transform that area. So why does it need to be in an area where there’s going to be temptation for Hamas to continue firing missiles at relatively close range to Israel?”

“Sort of slip that area down into Egypt” is a fairly cold way to describe a mass removal of a people from their homeland. But sure, it would indeed make this problem much easier for Israel if Palestinians completely abandoned their legitimate territorial claims. He should suggest this to the Palestinian leadership. They’ll be all, “Whoa hey, now there’s some thinkin’ — check out the noggin on this guy!”

Carson doesn’t need to worry all that much, though. Aside from nailing down a few key facts — what countries are in what alliances, which countries share borders, etc. — you don’t need all that much foreign policy knowledge to compete in a GOP presidential primary. You just need to know that aggressively pushing Russia into a corner is always a great idea that can only have positive consequences and never backfire, the proper Middle East policy is to kill everyone who gives America a nasty look, and same deal for all the other countries everywhere else. Leftism in South America must be dealt with — that too. Leftism in our hemisphere is bad. “Stand up to badness” is the general idea.

Another few minutes with the books should be enough.”

http://www.salon.com/2015/03/20/ben_carsons_fresh_foreign_policy_just_sort_of_slip_palestinians_down_to_egypt/

Amazingly ignorant. Racist, too.