Wednesday, 12 December 2012
Telling the media the truth that it doesn't want to hear
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.
Israel has taken many steps over these four years to advance direct talks. I spoke at Bar-Ilan University about a two-state solution, two states for two peoples – a Jewish state for the Jewish people, a Palestinian state for the Palestinian people. I can tell you that as the leader of the Likud, this was not a simple speech to make. But I did. The Palestinians didn’t come to the talks.
Israel removed hundreds of roadblocks, checkpoints, earth ramps. By so doing facilitated the movement of Palestinian people and goods. Still the Palestinians refused to come to the talks.
I implemented a ten month freeze on new construction in the settlements – something no Israeli leader did before me. And still, the Palestinians refused to come to the talks. After nine months, they deigned to speak to Israel for a few hours, that's it, in order to demand an additional freeze. No substance of talks.
In July, 2011, when the United States tabled a proposal to launch negotiations, renewed negotiations, this was based on President Obama’s two speeches, Israel said it was willing to consider this. The Palestinians refused.
When the government of Jordan came up with suggestions on how to launch talks, Israel agreed, the Palestinians refused.
I think the facts are clear to anyone who wants to see them.
Year after year, the Palestinians piled up precondition upon precondition. In 2009, it was a settlement freeze; in 2010, it was Israel’s agreement in advance to the 1967 border; in 2011, it was the release of all Palestinian prisoners. Who knows what preconditions the future holds?
The reason the Palestinians avoided negotiations for the past four years is a very simple one. They avoided negotiations because they were prepared to take concessions from Israel but they were not prepared to make concessions to Israel.
They were not prepared to recognize Israel as the Jewish state. They were not prepared to finally end the conflict with it. They were not prepared to seriously address Israel’s security needs. In fact, we had one meeting proposed in Jordan in which we wanted to simply lay out our security concerns. They absolutely refused to hear even a word of it.
The Palestinians could afford to avoid these negotiations because the international community exacted no price whatsoever for the Palestinian failure to negotiate in good faith.
The decision of the Palestinians to go to the United Nations is simply the next step in their strategy to avoid direct negotiations with Israel.
Again, they’re trying to take concessions without making concessions in return, and this is unacceptable to Israel. […]
Peace will not be achieved through one-sided resolutions at the UN that ignore Israel’s security interests and our national needs.
I regret the fact that the Palestinians have wasted the last four years and I sincerely hope they won’t waste the next four years.
We both need peace, our children deserve it, our people deserve it, and there’s only one way to achieve it: through bilateral negotiations, direct negotiations without preconditions. That was and remains our positions.
The UN resolution simply ignored Israel’s security needs, just wasn’t mentioned. Remember, we vacated territory, in Lebanon first, then in Gaza. We walked out and Iran and its terror proxies walked in. We have real security concerns. Everybody can understand that. Not that resolution. It simply ignored it, completely.
This resolution said nothing about the Palestinians’ need to recognize the Jewish state. It didn’t call on the Palestinians to end their conflict with Israel. And for all these reasons, Israel opposed it. This is why we called on other countries to oppose it.
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.
Israel will not accept that.
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.
This weekend, the leader of Hamas, sitting next to the Hamas leader of Gaza, a man who praised Osama bin-Laden, openly called for the destruction of Israel. Where was the outreach? Where were the UN resolutions? Where was President Abbas? Why weren’t Palestinian diplomats summoned to European and other capitols, to explain why the PA President not only refused to condemn this, but actually declared his intention to unite with Hamas? Where was all this? There was nothing. There was silence, and it was deafening silence.
We can’t accept that. We can’t accept that when Jews build homes in their ancient capitol of Jerusalem, the international community has no problem finding its voice, but when Palestinian leaders openly call for the destruction of Israel, for the one and only Jewish state, the world is silent. […]
All successive governments for the last 45 years, I think 45 years, from Levi Eshkol’s government on to Yitzhak Rabin’s government, through to Shimon Peres, through Ehud Barak, Ehud Olmert and so on, and down to my government in the present, built in these areas. They recognized that certain urban blocs, really three suburbs where we just announced that we’re going to build. There are three suburbs, two of Jerusalem, Ma’ale Adumim and Gush Etzion, and the third, Ariel as a suburb of Tel Aviv. Everybody recognized that these blocs, these urban blocs will remain as part of a final settlement of peace, and I know of no proposal and no plan ever raised by an Israeli government that didn’t include these blocs.
I can also tell you that based on the al-Jazeera leaks, this was even recognized by the Palestinian side. Everybody understands that these neighborhoods of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, these suburbs really, are going to remain in Israel, and part of Israel, in a final settlement of peace. The same applies to the narrow corridor that connects Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem. This was part of all the plans, from Yitzhak Rabin’s time to Olmert’s before me, and there’s been no change. So in that sense it’s a continuous policy.
I do have to say that I don’t understand how people say this will prevent, territorially, a Palestinian state that cannot exist if Ma’ale Adumim is connected to Jerusalem. These are the same people, the same people who say that you’ll have a continuous state between Gaza and Judea & Samaria – the West Bank, and they’re divided by 60-70 kilometers. That’s fine. That doesn’t preclude a Palestinian state in their minds. But the fact that Ma’ale Adumim would be connected to Jerusalem in a corridor that is 2-3 kilometers long, that somehow prevents a Palestinian state. That’s not true. It’s simply false. The unfortunate thing is you can repeat a falsehood endlessly and it assumes the cache of self-evident truth. It’s not true. It’s neither a new policy on my part, nor does it prejudice the final outcome of peace.
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.