Video: Netanyahu on why a 'Palestinian state' must be demilitarized
It is obvious to all of us, but to the rest of the world, strangely, it is not yet obvious. That's why Binyamin Netanyahu went on the Today Show on Monday morning to explain why any 'Palestinian state' must be demilitarized. While he was at it, he discussed Iran as well.Let's go to the videotape.
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
But then we knew that....
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 5:51 PM
1 Comments:
Carl,
I just think the whole "two state" line is a farce. Yes, it is a fact that Israel would need a "Palestine" to be demilitarized, but this need is irrelevant. Every single international obligation has been ignored by the 'Palestinians,' and if there were "two states," then the requirement of "demilitarization" would be ignored as well.
Thus, what have we learned?
"Two states" is a code word that has been internationally accepted, despite one shred of evidence to back up its usefulness. And as such, every Israeli leader, every Jewish leader, has to claim they support this unpeaceful and pro-genocide term in order to curry international favor.
Netanyahu basically said "two states, but the 'Palestinian' state would include conditions which we know they will never fulfill." I guess it is better than Olmert, who framed it as "Two states, because anything less, and Israel will be an apartheid state." But what Netanyahu said really still buys into illusions and falsified history.
What Netanyahu said was thus totally meaningless, but required under international diplospeak, because if he said anything less (i.e., the TRUTH), he would be branded a "right winger" who is "anti-peace," compared to the "pro-peace" and "moderate" Holocaust denying pro-genocide Mahmoud Abbas. So maybe Netanyahu, for real politik reasons, had to say what he said. But I still wonder if he could have framed things differently.
I believe Netanyahu should basically highlighted the anti-peace nature of 'Palestinian' society, and how they teach murder and genocide in all their schools/mosques/media, including UNRWA schools. Netanyahu should have then said "Israel wants peace, but it cannot have peace while its neighbor includes such genocidal incitement, which began many decades before Israel even formed as a state, including leading to the 1929 Hebron massacre."
I think Netanyahu then should have said "When the schools/mosques/media stop blaring such hate incitement, peace is possible. At that point we can negotiate for the terms and conditions of a "two state" solution, but until the hate incitement and terrorism ceases and desists, it is clear that "two states" will only reward a century of terrorism from the Arabs, and lead to more bloodshed and less peace."
If Netanyahu said that, he would not be speaking in diplospeak. He would be speaking open truths. But I guess, given the diplospeak parameters Netanyahu faces, he did a relatively good job.
Post a Comment
<< Home