Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s gave a speech to the Knesset yesterday, seen by many as a precursor to his Congressional address next week. The PM outlined his parameters for a peace plan with the Palestinians. However, if you went by the press reports you would think that peace was the last thing on Netanyahu’s mind.
The AP story carried by most US papers said, “Israel’s Netanyahu takes tough line toward Palestinians, Hamas ahead of trip to White House.” The NY Times called it “hawkish.” Both sources reflect their bias against Israel in general and more specifically Netanyahu, who they see as a right-winger (and you know how the mainstream media feels about right-wingers). The Wall Street Journal called the speech a stark assessment, and the Los Angeles Times piled on with
In a speech Monday before Israel’s Knesset, or parliament, that some saw as a preview of his planned May 24 address before the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu offered no new peace initiative and faulted Palestinians for the collapse of U.S.-mediated talks.
Wow, you would have thought, Netenyahu came out in a Patton costume, stood in front of a giant Israeli Flag and opened with something such as:
Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.
The truth is if they fairly reported the Prime Minister’s words, they would have reported that not only were they reasonable, but they included more concessions than the supposedly moderate Palestinian President Abbas had ever offered to Israel.
In the speech, Netanyahu agreed to give back all of Judea and Samaria except for Jerusalem and the major settlement blocks, this represents a tiny portion of the West Bank (and President Bush agreed in 2004 they will remain part of Israel). Previously Bibi has stated that he would agree to “land swaps” for any territory retained by Israel.
Most of Netanyahu’s peace outline consisted of things any reasonable person, even a liberal would consider fair. All of these “fair” things have never been agreed to by the Palestinians .
- Any peace agreement must mean the end of the conflict, not a hudna (temporary truce).
- Israel must be recognized as a Jewish State. This is also in accordance with the original UN Partition plan which recognized Israel as a Jewish State. Even President Obama, no great friend of Israel recognizes her as a Jewish State.
- Descendants of the 1948 Palestinian Arab refugees must be resettled inside a Palestinian state and not on Israeli territory. The Palestinian call for a “right of return” is simply a veiled attempt at destroying Israel’s Jewish character, destroying Israel “peacefully.”
On the other hand Palestinian President Abbas said that Bibi’s speech proves that Israel does not want peace. He insists on half of Jerusalem, never to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, that Israel must be overrun by Palestinian “refugees” and before serious negotiations begin, Israel must agree to give up every inch of land outside the 1949 Armistice lines.
So allow me to ask, which one is really the “hawk?
The facts regarding the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are an inconvenient thing. Just as the progressives in the United States tend to be anti-Israel, so are the progressive-dominated mainstream media. Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is a double target for the media, not only is he the leader of Israel, but when he was the Finance Minster he oversaw Israel’s transition from a mostly socialist, to a mostly capitalist economy. For the mainstream media, that it a mortal sin.
The Text of Netanyahu’s speech follows.
May 16, 2011
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Address at the Knesset
Two days ago, on the Tenth of Iyar, it was the 107th anniversary of Theodore Herzl’s death. It is no coincidence that his is the only portrait hanging on these walls. Herzl was the greatest leader the Jewish people has had in modern times. He was well aware of the condition of the Jewish people. He recognized the transformations that were taking place everywhere; and he clearly saw that a Jewish state was required in order for the Jewish people to survive, and that having an army was a necessity for the survival of this state. And not just an army, but a strong, modern army, equipped with advanced technology.
Here’s what he wrote in 1896: “The [army of the] Jewish State… equipped, of course, with every requisite of modern warfare, to preserve order internally and externally.” Herzl understood that nobody would protect us, and that we alone would have to safeguard our state. He wrote: “I only want this settlement, so that we can protect it with a Jewish army.” Herzl was a man of vision, but at the same time he was also a realist. He understood that even after obtaining a state of their own, the Jewish people would still have to protect itself. People thought he was crazy for having thought up the idea of establishing a Jewish state, but he was scorned and ridiculed even more when he spoke of his vision for a Jewish army. Although Herzl had managed to recruit some of the leading Jewish intellectuals of his time: Nordau, Zangwill and others, it is interesting to point out that the richer and more intellectual Jews in the West were least tolerant to his ideas. The more common Jews in the villages and towns of Eastern Europe – Poland, Russia and the Ukraine – were willing to accept Herzl’s vision and unite around his ideas.
Today, members of Knesset, we appreciate what many of our people ridiculed back then. Today we know that Herzl’s most remarkable ability was his awareness to the changing reality and to come up with a solution, even if this solution was not accepted among the Jewish leaders of the time. Herzl had a capability that very few have, to see the hatred towards the Jews for what it was at its very beginning, and, no less acutely, to realize where it was going. Herzl did not succeed in sweeping all the Jews with his proposed solution, but he did manage to unite the Zionist factions around his central ideas. I believe that without this seed of firm agreement within the Zionist Movement, the movement would never been able to overcome the powers that opposed it around the world.
What can we learn today from Herzl’s work? What is relevant to us today? The first lesson is that we must recognize changing reality. The Middle East is changing rapidly and drastically. Hundreds of millions of people around us yearn for political and financial freedom and are fighting to obtain these freedoms. These are inevitable changes. It is very possible that in the long term, these changes will be for the best, and I hope they will, for the good of these people and because at the end of the day, if this struggle is successful, it will promote the chance for peace and the peace’s resilience. But in the short term, in the interim, our situation could possibly worsen, be more problematic and more challenging. We can see what is happening in Egypt, in Syria and in Lebanon. Lebanon is now controlled by Hezbollah, under the sponsorship of Iran, when only five years ago there was such great hope for freedom and progress. We saw what happened along the borders of Israel yesterday. Thousands thronged against our fences in an attempt to invade our territory and challenge our sovereignty. I must say that from the point of view of yesterday’s rioters, 63 years of Israeli independence have changed nothing.
What were they yelling in Gaza yesterday? They were shouting that they want to return to Jaffa.
What were they crying in Syria yesterday? They were chanting that they want to return to the Galilee.
What did the leader of Hamas say yesterday? “We want to see the end of the Zionist agenda,” the very same words used by his patrons in Iran, but, my friends, this was not only said there.
I said that we hear what is being said around us, but the most interesting thing is what happened in Bil’in. And this does not only happen there, but it was interesting, because two days ago at the demonstration in Bil’in, the cat was let out of the bag – more precisely, the key was let out of the bag. At the procession in Bil’in, a young girl was walking along holding a large symbolic key. Every Palestinian knows what that key symbolizes. This is not a key to their homes in Bil’in, Ramallah or Nablus. It is the key to our homes in Jaffa, Acre, Haifa and Ramle. My friends, the root of this conflict never was a Palestinian state, or lack thereof. The root of the conflict is, and always has been, their refusal to recognize the Jewish state. It is not a conflict over 1967, but over 1948, over the very existence of the State of Israel. You must have noticed that yesterday’s events did not occur on June 5, the anniversary of the Six Day War. They occurred on May 15, the day the State of Israel was established. The Palestinians regard this day, the foundation of the State of Israel, their nakba, their catastrophe. But their catastrophe was that they did not have a leadership that was willing to reach a true historic compromise between the Palestinian people and the Jewish people.
Regrettably, since then until this day, they have not had a leadership that is prepared to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. That has not happened yet.
My friends, we must not bury our heads in the sand. We must face reality, as it is, with our eyes wide open. We must stop self-flagellating and blaming ourselves. We must call a spade a spade: the true reason the Palestinians refuse to recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people. I must say that I think that most people are beginning to understand this in face of the reality that is unfolding before us in our region and along our borders in particular. And I believe that most people are united regarding the standpoints that I will point out.
First, the people is united in our need to defend the country and its borders. Second, it is united in our need to maintain peace with Egypt and Jordan. Third, it is united faced with the threat of a nuclear Iran.
I also believe that most people are also united in regard to my viewpoints on the issue that seems to be in dispute, the political process with the Palestinians. The citizens of Israel are much more united than is commonly believed, and much more united than the political parties that are supposed to represent them here in this house. There are consensuses regarding the basic issues:
First, about my demand that the Palestinians recognize the State of Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.
Second, about my view, which is shared by many here, that the agreement between us must end the conflict and end the demands from the State of Israel.
Third, that the problem of the Palestinian refugees will be resolved outside of Israel and not within its borders.
Fourth, that a Palestinian state only be established under a peace treaty that will not compromise the safety of Israel. I believe there is agreement on this, and I stress that this state must be demilitarized, with practical security arrangements, including long term IDF presence along the Jordan River.
Fifth, we agree that we must maintain the settlement blocs. Many of us agree that the settlement blocs must remain inside the borders of the State of Israel.
Sixth, that Jerusalem remain the united and sovereign capital of the State of Israel.
These are the principles that guide my path, our path.
I know that a huge majority of people understands that we can only make peace with those who want to make peace with us. Those who wish to obliterate us are no partners for peace. A Palestinian government with half its members declaring daily that they plan to annihilate the Jewish state is not a partner for peace. Those who say, and I am familiar with the saying, that you only make peace with your enemies, must complement the statement with a small but important remark. You only make peace with an enemy, but with an enemy who has decided to make peace.
That is the major lesson from the 20th century, and I think probably from the 21st century too. Some of our neighbors and closest friends now understand that idea in relation to their own unrelenting enemies. I want to make peace with a Palestinian state that would end the conflict, I am not willing to accept a Palestinian state that continues it. I am prepared to accept a Palestinian state beside the State of Israel, but I will not accept a Palestinian state instead of the State of Israel. I know, I heard it even today, I know there are people who do not agree with some of the things I said here. But the large majority does agree.
Mr. Speaker and members of the Knesset, if they choose to recognize the State of Israel and abandon terrorism, they will find a unified people that is willing to make peace and is prepared for peace with concessions, but it must be real peace. That is what we want.
These compromises, by the way, will be hard to make because, no matter what, they are parts of our homeland. It is not a strange land, it is the land of our forefathers, to which we have historic rights as well as security interests.
Mr. Speaker, distinguished Members of Knesset,
Over 100 years ago, Herzl saw many factions in the Zionist Congress, with many different opinions. But he understood that there was agreement on the fundamental issues. He realized that the various sections of the Zionist Movement did see eye to eye on regarding the basics. He called upon the factions of the Zionist Congress to rise above factional and personal considerations. He called upon them to unite around the great ideas that served as the basis of the Zionist Movement.
This is what we must do today. In the past, the big Zionist powers were required to come together in order to establish the State, and today we need the big Zionist powers to come together to preserve the State and to ensure its future.
Therefore, at this historic moment, with our region in turmoil, with our very existence challenged, with the majority of us agreeing to the standpoints I outlined here, this is the moment to come together for our country.
I call upon you, Zionist members of the opposition, rise above party considerations, set aside your personal interests. Join us based on the principles that I have outlined, and let us present a united front for security, for peace, for the State.