Wednesday, 12 December 2012
In a 10th December 2012 briefing by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the Foreign Press Corps, he bluntly stated the truth that the international media doesn’t want the world to hear, especially with regard to the bad faith displayed by the "Palestinians" in the so-called "peace process". However, his statement is unlikely to make much impact - see below for an extract (source: Israeli Embassy, Dublin):
Four years ago, the day I took office, I called for direct negotiations with the Palestinians – direct negotiations without any preconditions. For four years, the Palestinians have avoided my call for direct negotiations. They continue to avoid it today.
The Palestinians decision to go to the UN was a material breach of the peace accords. It was an attempt to establish unacceptable terms of reference for negotiations. And it was an attempt to upgrade the Palestinian capability to wage a legal and diplomatic war against Israel.
The decisions we made following the UN resolution should make it perfectly clear that Israel will continue to defend its vital security and national interests.
Indeed there is a fifteen kilometre gap at its narrowest point between the E1 development and the Dead Sea so by no stretch of the imagination does the E1 prevent a contiguous Palestinian state. Similarly such a short corridor can’t by any means prevent access for a Palestinian state to Jerusalem. The very idea is an absurdity that the international media, and interfering politicians the world over, have been peddling for around a decade.
Posted on 12/12/2012 1:44 PM by Robert Harris
12 Dec 2012
It's a start.
But he needs to concede not one inch of psychological ground to the enemy.
And that means that the next time he makes a speech like this, and the next time any Israeli Jew, or any Friend of Zion, anywhere in the world, makes a speech like this, the terms 'Palestinian' and 'Palestinians' should be replaced thus:
'"Palestinian" Arab/s' (in situations where the tiny minority of Christian / Islamochristian Arabs are logically included)
"Palestinian Arab Muslim/s' (whenever the statement cannot be deemed to apply also to those Arab Christians who remain among the Muslims)
Or even: 'local Arab/s'
Or, 'Arab Muslim/s'.
And, very often, simply, 'Muslim/s'.
Try it. Go back through that speech and every time you see the word 'Palestinian' (as substantive or as adjective) or the word 'Palestinians', replace it with one of the terms I have suggested. Use that term throughout.
Then read the whole, with that term.
Then select the next, until finally, see what happens when 'Palestinian/s' is replaced simply by 'Muslim/s'.
There is something else. Netanyahu should read Mark Durie's 'The Third Choice: Islam, Dhimmitude and Freedom' and think about how Israel - the entire Jewish state - has been and is being relentlessly conditioned, by the whipsaw alternation of goodcop/ badcop tactics on the part of her Muslim neighbours, and also her Muslim Fifth Column, and the wider Muslim world with its non-Muslim camp followers (themselves conditoned to dhimmitude) to adopt behaviours increasingly reminiscent of a dhimmi; one who accepts that Muslims have the right to demand, and to attack, and to hurt, whilst suffering little or nothing in return, by way of consequences for that abusive behaviour.
And then he could read Mark Durie's latest: Liberty to the Captives - which offers some ideas about how to break individuals and groups free from the dhimmi trap; how to free them from what might, by analogy with 'battered woman syndrome', be called 'battered dhimmi syndrome'. Durie is working within a Christian framework, but I would hazard the guess that the concepts he is using - being Biblical - might well be susceptible of translation or transposition for use by Jews in Israel - and outside of it, wherever their co-religionists are exhibiting a baffling tendency to side with and pander to Muslim demands and the Muslim agenda.
Of course, like any Abuser and Oppressor whose victim has escaped and not only escaped but turned round and confronted the Abuser and roundly identified the Abuse as Abuse, as Evil, and has also repulsed and defeated all attempts by the Abuser to recapture and crush the escapee, the Muslims will absolutely gibber with rage and explode in fits of ultra-violence when and if this happens; if Israel abandons all semblance of dhimmi-like behaviour and instead starts bluntly telling things like they are. And that will merely expose them - the Muslims - for what they are.
Israel, and all other countries under attack from the Jihad, will only survive if they adopt a robust and consistent pattern of self-defence, imposing serious Consequences upon the Muslim bullies for their atrocious behaviour, and refusing to be confused or bamboozled.
12 Dec 2012
I have taken on board some of your comments about the use of the word Palestinian - hence the use of the word in inverted commas. I think "Palestinian-Arab" is a good compromise as it sufficiently qualifies the term, perhaps "Palestinian-Muslim" if religion is critical to the point as it so often is. The problem with completely avoiding the use of the word "Palestinian" is that it removes an important term used in such discussions. It may be acceptable most of the time but may cause confusion with readers that possess limited English, for example.
It clearly is a topic you feel passionate about so perhaps you could write an article about the matter?
Mark Durie is an interesting individual. Thank you for bringing him to my attention. I have just been reading one of his interviews where he relates what trouble and extreme expense two critics of Islam (apostates turned Christian) experienced in Victoria just after the turn of the Millennium due to a "religious tolerance" act, the kind the OIC are pressuring the rest of the world to enact.
The attitude of the (Christian) West to Islam is something along the lines of abuser or bully, a sense of intimidation through the use of sporadic violence along with coaxing diplomatic language designed to appeal to a Western audience that has been shaped by two or so centuries of (relatively) radical ideology that gave rise to quite a number of isms, and an almost inbred hatred of Western rationalism. I'm afraid there has been another step in that process http://barnabasfund.org/UK/Controversy-over-Saudi-funded-religious-tolerance-centre-in-Europe.html of late. The The very thing that made the West strong is ironically what has facilitated it becoming weak. Perhaps the only course is to challenge these values in a systematic fashion over the decades to come.