Palestinians Condemn Netanyahu Speech (VIDEO)

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's major policy speech Sunday was viewed as a positive forward step by the Obama administration for the fact that it mentioned a Palestinian state -- a concept previously ignored and derided by Netanyahu and, even more so, his conservative Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman. However, despite the ostensibly more accepting language, many others are condemning the speech for a number of reasons, and they reject Netanyahu's embrace of a Palestinian state as a red herring.

For example, senior Palestinian diplomat Saeb Erekat sees the speech as an end to any peace possibilities, rather than an overture for warmer relations. Reported by Al Jazeera English, Erekat responded that "Netanyahu's speech closed the door to permanent status negotiations...We ask the world not to be fooled by his use of the term Palestinian state because he qualified it. He declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel, said refugees would not be negotiated and that settlements would remain."

Likewise, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank also condemned Netanyahu for his intransigence on key issues in the peace process, namely Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the insistence that Jerusalem serve as the Jewish state's capital, according to the Wall Street Journal. Abbas' statement accused the Israeli Prime Minister of "sabotaging" any future peace negotiations.

Also weighing in from an Arab perspective is Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, who scoffs at Netanyahu's demand that Arabs recognize Israel as a Jewish state, according to Haaretz. In a statement on the state-run news agency, Mubarak said this demand, in particular, "scuttles the chances for peace...You won't find anyone to answer that call in Egypt, or in any other place," Haaretz reports.

And former President Jimmy Carter, long involved in the Israeli-Arab peace process, has expressed a similar lamentation: that the speech will only hinder the peace process further. According to Haaretz, Carter told the Knesset's Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that, "In my opinion, Netanyahu brought up several obstacles to peace in his speech that others before him have not placed."

And, perhaps more predictably than other critics, Hamas has issued statements excoriating the speech as "racist and extremist", the Ma'an News Agency reports:

"Netanyahu attempted to play with words in order to mislead people, claiming he wants peace. However, his racial attitudes, when he stipulates that the Palestinians recognize Palestine as a land for the Jews, indicate that Netanyahu is a liar when he talks about peace. This speech increased hatred and spitefulness."

However, Netanyahu's allies, both domestic and abroad, laud the speech as an ideal balance between peace and security concerns. According to his conservative foreign minister Avigdor Lieberman, for example, the speech reflected "the balance between our aspirations for peace and the aspiration for security...Netanyahu opened the door to the Palestinians and the Arab nations to begin peace talks, and we hope the other side will take up the offer to renew negotiations," according to the AP.

Watch Netanyahu's speech in full:

Comments

[arle]

10:40 PM on 06/16/2009

I certainly don't agree with a lot of things Hamas says and does but I will say this -- that speech /was/ blatantly racist. It says that Palestinians -- ostensibly the Christians and the Muslims, at any rate, although people seem to forget that there were non-Zionist, native Palestinian Jews that were targeted by Zionists as well -- have no right to protect themselves from Israeli war crimes or the loss of their homes, economy or natural resources. Israel has a peace treaty with Jordan and yet they insist that the IDF /must/ be stationed along the Jordan river. And while making any Palestinian "state" deliberately subordinate to Israel, it also openly insists that Israel is a "Jewish state" -- which unlike Muslim nations, makes explicit /racial/ superiority over Arabs. Israeli Jews insist they are a secular ethnic group, after all.

Netanyahu has basically stated that he wishes make the West Bank into an extension of what Gaza has become under Israeli occupation -- a region that Israel insists is "independent" but is then deliberately and systematically deprived of its capacity to defend itself, build and sustain and economic base or even maintain basic government services since those buildings -- police stations, jails, administrative buildings, even the Parliament -- were targeted by air strikes and Israel blockades even the necessary construction materials to rebuild them.

[BubbaC33]

04:11 PM on 06/17/2009

This posting provides an account of Israeli history that is far from correct.
It goes on to provide an account of what has taken place in Gaza that is inaccurate and incorrect.

[Sentientbeing09]

07:47 AM on 06/18/2009

Bubba, your posts are becoming more and more sparse of any content. Why bother.

[Sentientbeing09]

07:46 AM on 06/18/2009

Excellent

[nowarpleez]

08:44 PM on 06/15/2009

It appears that CBS Evening News is siding with Yahu and the hardliners. The Monday night news was totally biased and one sided. Netanyahu had an open forum with no alternative points of view and no Palestinian perspective. It was embarrassing.

[Theou]

05:51 PM on 06/15/2009

It is not only Palestinians who look askance at PM Netanyahu's speech.
MeretzUSA has also released a critical statement:


http://www.meretzusa.org/meretz-usa-president-lawrence-lerner-and-chairman-theodore-bikel-declare-netanyahu%E2%80%99s-speech-was-a-wa

[myopinion2]

05:50 PM on 06/15/2009

I am disappointed though not surprised by netanyahu's announced position. It is insufficiently responsive to Obama's peace initiative. However, let us not lose sight that the PA similarly is being inflexible with demands it knows are non-starters. Israel will not and should not be required to give up sovereignty of the Jewish Quarter of the Old City or the jewish neighborhoods it has built in East Jerusalem. Millions of Palestinians currently living in the West Bank will not be allowed to settle in Israel instead of the Palestinian state. the Palestinian state being demilitarized without an air force, tanks and rockets is just as essential to a peace agreement as is Israel's giving up all of the settlements except for the 4 urban centers adjacent to the Green Line. Abbas stated in a press interview recently that Olmert offered him 97% of the West Bank for a Palestinian state but he turned it down. The so-called leaders of both sides leave a lot to be desired.

[S1m0n]

04:44 PM on 06/15/2009

Apart from the glorious opportunity to recognise Israel as a jewish nation, I can't see what in Netanyahu's vision would change for the Palestinians. The 'Palestinian state' the Israeli PM describes is indistinguishable from the status quo.

[Bendit]

04:35 PM on 06/15/2009

I especially like the style of the speech. Layout some firm conditions and then invite everyone to the table saying "no preconditions"!!!!

Listen up Bibi, how about we demilitarize the whole area including Israel before we start the "peace" negotiations. That kinda sounds fair to me. No one has any weaponry. That has a ring of peace to it.

[davidwayneosedach]

04:18 PM on 06/15/2009

The Palestinians know double talk when they see it. There will be no changes in Israeli - Palestinian relations.

[misaacm]

04:14 PM on 06/15/2009

Did people really believe that Bibi would make all of his compromises up-front? This is a good starting point. If the Palestinians wanted peace, they would have said; good starting point, lets negotiate. Instead they whine and pout like the spoiled children that they are. Its easier to play the victim than to take responsibility for the mistakes they have made over the past century. The Palestinians don't really want a state, if they did they could have had one in 1922 1947 and 2000. Destroying Israel is more important to them than building a state, where they would have to be responsible for picking up the garbage.

Fine, live in poverty and misery for another 60 years. Call us when you grow up.

[arle]

04:41 PM on 06/15/2009

Bibi stated that colonization of the West Bank will continue. And it will probably accellerate, like it did during Israel's farcical participation in the Oslo negotations.

[misaacm]

10:42 AM on 06/16/2009

I know you don't agree, but the Israelis see the West bank as disputed territory, not occupied territory. If the Palestinians want the West Bank for a state (something I agree with), then they need to get to the negotiating table immediately. Bibi offered to deal, but the Pals aren't interested in negotiations. Fine. That is their choice. They seem to feel that Obama will deliver Israel on a platter.

[Spencaa]

03:44 PM on 06/15/2009

It does seem unreasonable, but what is unreasonable about aksing them to just recognize Israel? What country in their right mind would give away territory to a country that doesn't even recognize them?

[petera63]

05:07 AM on 06/16/2009

Good question.

[arle]

10:42 PM on 06/16/2009

What country in their right mind would give away territory to a country that doesn't even recognize them? Well not Palestine, that's for sure.

[BubbaC33]

11:23 PM on 06/18/2009

According to your posting Israel has no obligation to give up any land to the Palestinians given their refusal to recognize Israel.

[bdd]

03:43 PM on 06/15/2009

HEY.
Can't view the video.
What's the problem???

[petera63]

05:08 AM on 06/16/2009

Click on the play button.

[MiddlePassage]

03:37 PM on 06/15/2009

Back to the 1967 borders Israel and at least admit that you have defrauded Palestinians of land within Israel to build your religious state.

[BubbaC33]

03:30 PM on 06/16/2009

Folks demanding a return to the pre-67 war borders are unaware of the history of the region. Prior to 1967 the PLO attacked Israel on a fairly regular basis. And in 1967 Egypt used its military to illegally close the Straits of Tiran, an act of war. Follwing on that act of war the combined armies of several Arab nations massed over 100,000 troops on the Israeli border, also an act of war.
The point is simple, a return to the pre-67 borders will not bring about peace, just a return to Arab adventurism. Rather than guarantee peace the return to the pre-67 borders will bring about the destruction of Israel.

[arle]

05:52 PM on 06/16/2009

Here's what adventurism is really all about:
http://www.mideastweb.org/pland.htm

[LincolnParkChicago]

03:14 PM on 06/15/2009

The "Jewish state" demand is new. I have seen it openly stated for less than a year. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.
I remember a time when the Israeli government denied that Israel was or would ever be a "Jewish state" as opposed to a true democracy. In 1985, such notions as a "Jewish state" were officially discouraged by Israel.
Now it is openly stated. Now, with Lieberman, they are policy.
Kahanism is a term, named after controversial Israeli Rabbi Meir Kahane. It refers to an organization and, more generally, to other movements or groups that share a belief in the fundamental tenets of its ideology. Chief among these is the idea that the State of Israel should defend itself against Arab and Nazi enemies, and thus should accord full citizenship exclusively to Jews, and that all gentiles should be accorded equal rights except voting provided they accept Jewish religious law. Since 1985, the State of Israel has outlawed political parties espousing Kahane's ideology as being racist, and forbids their participating in the Israeli government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kahanism
Yisrael Beiteinu chairman Avigdor Lieberman was once a member of the outlawed far-right party Kach, Haaretz learned yesterday. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1061350.html

[arle]

08:33 PM on 06/15/2009

I wouldn't call it new but this is the first time they've tried to make it official across the board. Netanyahu has tried to have "Jewish state" quietly written into treaties for a while now -- this is the first time it has become an open demand.

I find it more than a little ironic. The pro-Israeli crowd vacillates between refering to Jews as a religion or an ethnicity. Say what you will about a Muslim state but at least in Islam they are commanded to respect both Jews and Christians -- they don't actually refer to us as "infidels" in spite of the propaganda. Take a look at the Iranian constitution some time -- it extends explicit civil and legal protections to a number of religions, including Judaism. Better still check out the percentages of Christian populations in Syria, Jordan and Egypt.

[joeinvt]

08:02 AM on 06/16/2009

So why has the indigenous Jewish population of the Mideast been almost entirely displaced? The fact that 25% or so of the indigenous Jewish population of Iran remains looks great relative to the .002% remaining in Egypt, the .003% in Iraq, etc. but by any other standard the Iranian data would be considered as evidence of ethnic cleansing in progress. Further, the Hamas charter grants death to Jews not freedom of religion.

[joeinvt]

12:11 PM on 06/16/2009

Better yet check out the percentages of Jewish populations in Syria, Jordan, and Egypt (and the rest of the Muslim countries of the Mideast) and then let us know why hardly any of the one million or so indigenous Jews of those countries live there anymore. And say what you will, Jews have no doctrinal mandate and no history of persecuting other groups on the basis of religion unlike Christians and Muslims.

[Lendall]

02:45 PM on 06/15/2009

One could make many comments, but instead I will simply ask a question: What does this say to Israel's Arab Muslim population? That they are no longer citizens of Israel? That they can no longer vote (let alone be members of the Israeli parliament, as a few of them are)? Maybe this is tied in with the "loyalty oath" issue. I am not asking about refugees or any right of return. I am asking purely with respect to the existing Arab Muslim citizens of Israel.

[Garioch]

04:02 PM on 06/15/2009

And the largely forgotten and ignored Palestinian Arab Christian population.

[Doris]

04:26 PM on 06/15/2009

It just says that they are living in a Jewish state. Just as muslims live in Denmark and France.

[almazza98]

06:34 PM on 06/15/2009

It is nothing like that. I don't see how you don't see the difference.

[piul05]

07:12 PM on 06/15/2009

Oh, honestly, don't be disengenuous...

[newyorkid]

01:49 PM on 06/15/2009

PaIestine belongs to the PaIestinians.

[BubbaC33]

06:59 PM on 06/15/2009

Not according to Egypt and Jordan. Those two Arab nation controlled Gaza and the West Bank for almost 20 years and neither established a Palestinian state.

[arle]

08:11 PM on 06/15/2009

Actually, right now, both Egypt and Jordan recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation. As does the whole of the Arab League. Nice try!

[arle]

12:14 AM on 06/16/2009

Those two Arab nations also now recognize Palestine as a sovereign nation.

[newyorkid]

01:49 PM on 06/15/2009

The probIem is the facts on the ground. Palestinians have an inaIienable right to return to their homes and their 1948 lands been returned to them. Nobody can sign a "hoax" agreement ignoring or proxying their right to return.

[riverhouse]

03:15 PM on 06/15/2009

Good point, newyorkid.

[Mosby12]

03:38 PM on 06/15/2009

Ok but Israel also has right to exist.

[arle]

08:36 PM on 06/15/2009

And the Arab nations agree. Check it out.
http://www.al-bab.com/arab/docs/league/peace02.htm