If you read only the mainstream media reports on Israel, you come away thinking that it is the Israelis who are the obstacles to peace, and that it is the Palestinians who are the ones who are willing to make concessions to create a Palestinian state.
That is, until you actually read what the leaders of the two nations are actually saying. If you read only what the news media say they are saying, well, then you get something like this, which passes for analysis at the AP:
It’s also unclear if Netanyahu uttered the words “Palestinian state” because he really believes in one, or because he is trying to get out of a tight spot with President Barack Obama.
Understand the incredible hubris of that single sentence: Bibi Netanyahu used the words “Palestinian state” in his address on Sunday, just as the world was demanding he do. In fact, they came out like this:
But we must also tell the truth in its entirety: within this homeland lives a large Palestinian community. We do not want to rule over them, we do not want to govern their lives, we do not want to impose either our flag or our culture on them.
In my vision of peace, in this small land of ours, two peoples live freely, side-by-side, in amity and mutual respect. Each will have its own flag, its own national anthem, its own government. Neither will threaten the security or survival of the other.
[…] And here is the substance that I now state clearly: If we receive this guarantee regarding demilitirization and Israel’s security needs, and if the Palestinians recognise Israel as the State of the Jewish people, then we will be ready in a future peace agreement to reach a solution where a demilitarised Palestinian state exists alongside the Jewish state.
The analysis discounted all of that (plus much more), and then trotted out Bill Clinton, whose administration actively worked against Netanyahu’s administration, for more “analysis”:
Former President Bill Clinton called the Israeli leader’s tough terms the opening moves in a “drama that will have a few more acts.”
“Based on my experience with Mr. Netanyahu, he did what he thought he had to do to keep the ball rolling and not completely alienate the United States initiative,” Clinton said.
“This is the opening play,” he added. “This is his response to the Obama administration’s first move.”
And then, buried way down in the article, the author suddenly remembers to point out that Netanyahu really isn’t asking for much more than has already been discussed by the Palestinians, Americans, Europeans, and Israelis in the past twenty years:
In truth, some of Netanyahu’s conditions were not surprising or new. Past peace talks did not envision a Palestinian state with offensive military capabilities. And a number of Palestinian leaders have privately acknowledged that millions of refugees and their descendants are unlikely to return to Israel in a final peace deal.
Really? So why so hot against Bibi’s saying what is already known, then? Why, the AP will tell you, by trotting out yet another critic, with the most spurious reason of all: Tone.
“The real difference lies in the tone – in the degrading and disrespectful nature of Netanyahu’s remarks,” wrote Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar in the Haaretz daily. “That’s not how one brings down a wall of enmity between two nations, that’s not how trust is built.”
What utter crap. What bullshit. Tone? Disrespect? You mean like this?
“Netanyahu’s speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations,” he said. “We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it.”
Or maybe this?
Former President Jimmy Carter, on a visit to Israel, said Monday the speech “raised many new obstacles to peace that had not existed with previous prime ministers.”
Specifically, what did Netanyahu raise that has not been raised before? Nothing. Carter, as always, is lying. And the AP, as always, is blaming Israel when it should be blaming the Palestinians. It wasn’t Israel that launched 7,000 missiles at Palestinian civilian areas.
Netanyahu isn’t the first Israeli leader to say “Palestinian state,” of course. I’m still waiting for any Palestinian leader to say “Jewish state” unless the phrase “we don’t agree to a…” prefaces it.
Why do people assume the Palis actually want a state? At every opportunity to get one they have petulently thrown the chance away, like toddlers throwing a serving of strained spinach on the floor rather than eat it. I think they do not want a state. They will be perfectly willing to live under any tyrant that comes along, so long as he leads them in killing Jews. That is want they want, killing Jews. Getting a life is not something they view as important.