Appreciate this article? +972 depends on your support.

Click here to help us keep going

Analysis News
Visit our Hebrew site, "Local Call" , in partnership with Just Vision.

The real problem with Netanyahu's mufti speech

By calling the Palestinians Nazis, the Israeli prime minister was saying they can never be negotiated with — that Israel must fight them to the bloody end.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a speech at the World Zionist Congress, Jerusalem, October 20, 2015. (Amos Ben-Gershom/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gives a speech at the World Zionist Congress, Jerusalem, October 20, 2015. (Amos Ben-Gershom/GPO)

Despite the festival of mockery taking place on social media, Benjamin Netanyahu clearly does not believe that Grand Mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini is more responsible than Hitler for the Holocaust. (Although that is exactly what the prime minister said in his speech at the World Zionist Conference on Tuesday.) Netanyahu is a smart guy who knows World War II history better than most of his critics. The idea that the mufti is responsible for the extermination of European Jewry is completely absurd, and Netanyahu knows that. Just like he explained the next day, he wasn’t even talking about the Nazis, and he certainly never meant to absolve them for the Holocaust. The prime minister was trying to make a statement about the Palestinians and that’s the real problem.

Saying that the Palestinians are Nazis — very much like the comparison between Israel and the Nazis — has no place in a fact-based or historically accurate discourse. That should go without saying. The only reason to do so would be to illustrate that it is impossible to negotiate, or even speak with, the other side — that they must be fought to the bloody end. That is the historical historical context and significance of comparing somebody to the Nazis. They are one of the few regimes in all of history whose illegitimacy is absolute — to everyone in the world. Even those who had the most remote ties with the Nazis, even those who tried to make deals with them to save Jews, were later classified as traitors. Because one wages only war against Nazis. Look at every WWII film ever made — there is no such thing as a good Nazi.

The Palestinians, of course, are not Nazis. Their resistance to the establishment of Jewish settlements in Palestine in the first half of the 20th century is similar to the resistance of nearly every indigenous group to European settlers who arrived in their lands. The fact that the Jews felt they had no other choice and were being persecuted, the fact that they believed this was their homeland, that changed nothing for the Palestinians. It may unpleasant, but it’s also not incomprehensible.

None of that applies to the present reality, however. Excluding Gaza, more than 10 million people live under Israeli sovereign rule today. Four million Palestinians and 6 million Jews. If you count Gaza, the numbers are almost even. These populations are completely intertwined almost everywhere in the whole territory. And since nobody is going anywhere, the fundamental political question is how can we live together?

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks through binoculars toward the Gaza Strip during a visit to an army base in southern Israel, October 20, 2015. (Haim Zach/GPO)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu looks through binoculars toward the Gaza Strip during a visit to an army base in southern Israel, October 20, 2015. (Haim Zach/GPO)

Netanyahu rejects the premise of that question. He talks of total war. Of Nazis. And when it’s not Nazis it’s Islamic State, another group the entire world agrees must be completely eradicated. In that regard the Israeli prime minister is reminiscent of his father, who said in a 2009 interview (Hebrew) that “the Arab enemy is so difficult because his tendency is toward conflict is part of his nature. Enmity is part of his personality and character. That is the personality of the Arab, that he is not willing to reach compromises or agreements. It doesn’t matter what level of resistance he meets or what price he is forced to pay. His existence is that of permanent war.” In the same interview, Netanyahu the elder proposed seizing as much territory as possible, holding onto it by force and levying collective punishment — such as withholding food to entire cities and cutting off electricity and education — on all those who resist. He said even worse things that didn’t make it into print.

Luckily for us, Netanyahu may have inherited his father’s worldview but he didn’t inherit a plan of action. He is a more measured and level-headed person. We’ve had political leaders in Israel who were much more prone to jumping straight into military operations and collective punishment than Netanyahu. But no leader, certainly not in recent years, has spoken like Bibi. Nobody else speaks in such abstract, absolute terms — of a world defined by total, uncompromising war between Jews and Arabs. Definitely not since Menachem Begin.

If the Palestinians are indeed Islamic State or Nazis, Netanyahu would be insanely irresponsible for advancing any kind of arrangement or agreement with them. If they were ISIL or Nazis, even living as neighbors in the same building with them would be putting lives at risk. Netanyahu’s vision amounts to perpetual civil war. Netanyahu’s famous military cautiousness isn’t worth anything as long as he continues poisoning relations between Jews and Arabs, and as long as he is advancing a vision in which Jews are the frontline in a global war against Muslim civilization. The frontline, remember, is pulverized and destroyed before anything else.

Benjamin Netanyahu’s “mufti speech” was not delivered in a vacuum. It comes in the midst of the worst deterioration of relations between Jews and Arabs inside the Green Line since October 2000. And Netanyahu is no observer on the sidelines. He is the prime minister. His exegeses and commentary help shape the world around us.

There is also another way of looking at things. The situation is very, very bad but it is not irreparable. Violence is taking place here and there, but millions of Jews and Palestinians are going about their lives. Anxious and suspicious, but going about their lives. This is not Syria. It is not a religious war. It’s important to look around every once in a while and remember that. There are no Nazis here.

The conflict is still taking place in a political framework, a framework over which Israel still has control. The vision of living together — in two states, one state or a confederation — has not vanished. The problem is that for Netanyahu there is no such vision. There are only Arabs in droves. There is Islamic State. There are Nazis. And a prime minister’s speech carries weight and has dramatic influence over the world.

A version of this article was first published in Hebrew on Local Call.

Newsletter banner

For additional original analysis and breaking news, visit +972 Magazine's Facebook page or follow us on Twitter. Our newsletter features a comprehensive round-up of the week's events. Sign up here.

View article: AAA
Share article
Print article
  • LEAVE A COMMENT

    * Required

    COMMENTS

    1. Gustav

      I don’t care what Netanyahu, meant, said, didn’t say or didn’t mean.

      But one thing is fact. The Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, Haj Amin Al Hussaini, the uncle of Arafat. Did cozy up to Hitler and he DID suggest to him that he shouldn’t forget about the Jews of Palestine and that he should include us in his program to exterminate all the Jews he could lay his hand on. He also offered Hitler his cooperation to make it happen.

      If the hyenas in here want to just laugh that off, then I suggest that they should broaden their reading. I can help tutor them if they beg for it.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        In describing here what Netanyahu does, Sheizaf describes you to a T, Gustav.

        Reply to Comment
    2. Gustav

      In 1945, Yugoslavia sought to indict the Mufti as a war criminal for his role in recruiting 20,000 Muslim volunteers for the SS, who participated in the killing of Jews in Croatia and Hungary. He escaped from French detention in 1946, however, and continued his fight against the Jews from Cairo and later Beirut. He died in 1974.

      Reply to Comment
    3. Gustav

      ” Nobody else speaks in such abstract, absolute terms — of a world defined by total, uncompromising war between Jews and Arabs. Definitely not since Menachem Begin.”

      …and Begin withdrew from Sinai and signed a peace deal with Sadat who got assassinated for signing that peace deal with us. Go figure…

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Sadat got what he needed from Begin and it formed the basis of the peace: a withdrawal from every square centimeter of the occupied territory of the Sinai Peninsula. When Netanyahu withdraws from every square centimeter of the occupied territories, let us know. Keep us updated, will ya? Thanks.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Yet Begin is the one who is accused in this article of havingbeen uncompromising and an absolutist.

          You people are in denial about what needs to happen in order for peace to break out. All it took for even our “absolutists uncompromising” leaders to make peace, was a Sadat on the other side. And it is a matter of historical record that the vast majority of Arabs hated that outcome.

          But according to Benny, WE are the uncompromising war mongers who need to be murdered by his Arab heros to push us to make peace.

          Reply to Comment
    4. Tzvi

      The problem is that meanwhile, after almost a century of Arab antisemitic education of their populace the average Muslim, whether Palestinian, Lebanese, Kuwaiti, Egyptian or whatever, is fully convinced that the Jews are the embodiment of evil in the world, when in reality – considering the odds – Israel is one of the most humane countries I have lived in. You talk to any Muslim, especially the lesser educated ones, and they believe that there are 150 million Jews in the world, and they control the whole world. This is not a joke, and the so called Palestinian Israeli conflict is based de facto on a deep seated resentment on the Arab side, that territory that at some point in history was administrated by Muslims has been retaken by its indigenous population that never stopped populating that land. The vast majority of Arabs on the other hand who call themselves Palestinians, has been living there for not much longer than the Jews who immigrated from Europe. The attacks on Jews prior to the establishment on the State of Israel in fact shows, that the necessity to establish a state for the Jews as a safe haven was not based on Nazi prosecution, but on jihadist ambitions of the Arab political component.

      Reply to Comment
      • Ben

        Enough with the psychoanalyzing of the Palestinians and how they really really feel deep down about Jews. Stop your behavior and their feelings will follow. Not the other way around. The fact is that if some magical psychoanalyst in the sky miraculously wiped out every ill feeling any Palestinian anywhere has about Jews, the last thing the Israelis would then do is salivate at the chance to make peace. What, rather, the Israelis would do is say to themselves, “nice, the status quo is lovely isn’t it, what’s the rush?, what occupation? Yawn.” And the pace of settlement would only speed up. And the right wingers would be saying “Nice. We rebooted the hard drive, now we got another 48 years to throughly p*ss off them and the rest of the world before we have to worry about that boycott crap again.” So spare us bogus “deep-seated root cause” ‘analyses’ of the present situation. These exercises in propaganda masquerading as analyses fundamentally get it backwards.

        Reply to Comment
        • Gustav

          Stop with the psychoanalyzing says Benny. Then he launches into it himself. Vintage Benny.

          Moreover he is wrong. He accuses Israelis of needing to be pushed to make peace. That we would do nothing without Arabs murdering us randomly in the street.

          Yet, it is a matter of historical fact that various Israeli leaders launched a number of peace initiatives ALL of which ended in violence instead of peace. And typically, when does Arab violence ease? ANSWER: when we too resort to violence and overwhelming force.

          But Benny and his cohorts is in denial about all that. According to them it is all a myth. We are the war mongers and their Palestinian Arabs are peaceful angels.

          Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            I commented on what Israelis do or do not do, not on what they feel.

            “He accuses Israelis of needing to be pushed to make peace. That we would do nothing….”

            It is not an accusation, it is an observation. The “would” here is misplaced, it does not belong in that sentence. It is a fact that Israelis have done nothing unless pushed and nothing in their past behavior *would* predict they *will* do anything if not pushed.

            Michael Omer-Mann: “There will never be a Palestinian leader who agrees to Netanyahu’s terms for peace — terms that preclude any semblance of a sovereign Palestinian state. There will also never be any occupied and subjugated people that does not employ violence, sometimes abhorrent violence, to resist an oppressive military regime that offers them no avenue or hope for equality and dignity.”

            Here are historical facts about peace “initiatives” as you say:

            Encountering Peace: Debunking myths
            By GERSHON BASKIN
            Wed, 21 Oct 2015, 09:55 AM

            http://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Encountering-Peace-Debunking-myths-428662#article=6017N0MyRjhGNzJBQzhDRDlGODRGNDZCMDE1OEVBQzY2RTQ=

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Notice how Benny avoids discussing inconvenient observations that I made on this very thread. Here it is again…

            Begin the so called “uncompromising absolutist” made peace and got out of the Sinai. What did it take? It took a Sadat. And the Arab world was furious with Sadat at the time for making peace.

            Benny either ignores such inconvenient facts or explains it away with mumbo jumbo which minutes mizes what Israel has already demonstrated what it is prepared to do for peace and excuses his Arabs for resisting any urge to sign a peace deal with us.

            Poor old Benny, he will do anything to revile us and to adulate his Arabs for being “the angels of peace”. He just makes a fool of himself.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            This might be interesting if it were true, but it’s not. Let’s examine this calmly and rationally.

            I’m not avoiding anything. I simply didn’t, and don’t, think these observations of yours carry the significance that you attribute to them. You claim the Arab world “at the time” reacted negatively. Perhaps that’s true in part at least but it’s strikingly beside the point, or actually, makes the opposite point: Those three little words–“at the time”–say it all. That time was in fact 1979–thirty-six years ago–and point to the fact that twenty-three years later Israel swiftly rejected the Arab Peace Initiative extended by the Arab world, in 2002, and again five years after that, in 2007. Twice rejected by Israel. By Sharon, then by Netanyahu. And none other than your own President Shimon Peres, in 2009, expressed satisfaction at the “u-turn” in the attitudes of Arab states toward peace with Israel but this translated into no reciprocal action whatsoever, in regards to the Arab initiative, by Israel. So who has evolved and who has stayed stuck, unevolved? The Arabs evolved, Israel stayed stuck.

            The rest of your response is merely an ad hominem attack that has zero significance, except for what it signifies about you.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            What aspect of the Arab peace initiative is an evolution, Benny?

            Certainly not it’s demand for an unconditional “right of return”.

            The rest of it may have some promise. But in the meanwhile, we too can and DO dismiss that initiative using the same logic which you use to dismiss ALL Israeli peace initiatives…

            No Israeli leader can accept the Arab peace initiative in it’s present form.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            It is most obviously an evolution from 1979, on the face of it. As for the API’s ‘demand for an unconditional “right of return”’ — again that would be interesting if it were true. But it is not. The API asks for a “just” and “agreed upon” solution to the Palestinian refugee question. The true reason Israel summarily dismissed the API, twice, and treats it not even as an opportunity to explore but rather as something like the plague bacillus, is because it does not want to make peace. It is simply unwilling to pay a fair price for peace. Yossi Beilin has the straight dope:

            http://www.timesofisrael.com/why-is-israel-so-afraid-of-the-arab-peace-initiative/

            ‘Former minister Meir Sheetrit, who for 25 years sat in the Knesset for the Likud party and today serves as faction chairman for Tzipi Livni’s Hatnua, has always been a staunch supporter of the plan.

            “The Arab Peace Initiative was relevant from its first day in 2002, when Saudi King Abdullah proposed it. Today, like then, I think that is the best idea that has ever been heard, through which we can achieve peace,” the Moroccan-born politician said recently in an interview. “It is over a decade later, and it still remains the fastest and best path to achieve peace. Because it is a comprehensive initiative bringing 56 Islamic countries to the table who proclaim, ‘If you return to the 1967 borders and find a just and accepted solution for the refugees, we –all 56 Arab states — are ready to make full peace with Israel.’ That is an amazing thing.”

            As Sheetrit points out, the initiative has been approved four times in Arab League conventions since 2002. “Only with us [Israelis] — nothing doing. No prime minister wants to hear about it.”

            For Yossi Beilin, a former justice minister and the chief architect of the Oslo Accords, it is clear why Israel’s right-wing governments were and are not interested in the Arab Peace Initiative: it refutes their dogma that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, rather than being a territorial dispute, stems from the Arab world’s refusal to accept a Jewish state in the region, regardless of its borders.

            Israel’s right-wing ideologues do not want to believe in the Arab offer’s sincerity because this would destroy their entire Weltanschauung, Beilin suggested. “Out of the blue, 11 years ago, came the Arab world and said, ‘You make peace with your neighbors, we will make peace with you.’ It’s as simple as that,” he told The Times of Israel. “But rather than saying, ‘Hey, this is a revolution! Say it again!,’ we said, ‘No, you don’t really mean it. You can’t mean, after all — we know you.’”

            This was Sharon’s initial reaction, and since then every right-wing leader to date has rejected the initiative for the same reason, Beilin said. “Once they accept the idea that we might be accepted by the Arab world if we make peace with the Palestinians, it puts the entire onus in the Arab-Israeli conflict on Israel… And [Israel’s right-wing leaders] are not ready, ideologically, to pay the territorial price for peace.”’

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”It is most obviously an evolution from 1979, on the face of it. As for the API’s ‘demand for an unconditional “right of return”’ — again that would be interesting if it were true.”

            Read the following…

            “The API’s reliance on United Nations (UN) General Assembly Resolution 194 of 1949 with regard to the refugee issue and its “rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries”. As then-Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni noted in rejecting the API during a previous round of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in 2008, the Arab world understands Resolution 194 to mean the right of return of all five million 1948 refugees and their descendants – a position unacceptable to virtually all Israelis.”

            https://www.opendemocracy.net/opensecurity/yossi-alpher/return-of-arab-peace-initiative

            BEN:”‘Former minister Meir Sheetrit, who for 25 years sat in the Knesset for the Likud party and today serves as faction chairman for Tzipi Livni’s Hatnua, has always been a staunch supporter of the plan.”

            Other Israeli leaders like Peres for instance reacted to the plan favorably when the plan was first announced. He was Israel’s foreign Minister at the time and he said that the plan would be good in a modified form but the Saudis made clear that it is out of the question. Their attitude was ‘take it or leave it’.

            BEN:”For Yossi Beilin, a former justice minister and the chief architect of the Oslo Accords, it is clear why Israel’s right-wing governments were and are not interested in the Arab Peace Initiative: it refutes their dogma that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, rather than being a territorial dispute, stems from the Arab world’s refusal to accept a Jewish state in the region, regardless of its borders.”

            No it does not. If Israel would accept the plan in it’s present form. The unconditional right of return in it would mean the end of Israel.

            BEN:”Israel’s right-wing ideologues do not want to believe in the Arab offer’s sincerity because this would destroy their entire Weltanschauung, Beilin suggested. “Out of the blue, 11 years ago, came the Arab world and said, ‘You make peace with your neighbors, we will make peace with you.’ It’s as simple as that,” he told The Times of Israel. “But rather than saying, ‘Hey, this is a revolution! Say it again!,’ we said, ‘No, you don’t really mean it. You can’t mean, after all — we know you.’”

            When the plan was originally announced, Labor was in power and they did not accept the plan in it’s present form. How come, Benny?

            The rest of your post is your usual verbose BS.

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            The Arab Peace Initiative was proposed and unanimously endorsed by the Arab League members at the Beirut Summit on 27th March 2002. Ariel Sharon took power (from Ehud Barak) more than a year before that, on 7th March, 2001.

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Following Ehud Barak’s defeat by Ariel Sharonin the 2001 direct election for Prime Minister, Peres made yet another comeback. He led Labor into a national unity government with Sharon’s Likud and secured the post of Foreign Minister.

            The intifada was raging and there were virtually daily attacks against Israeli civilians. Nevertheless…

            “Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed it [the API] and said: “… the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authoritymust put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya,” [2] referring to Netanya suicide attack perpetrated on previous evening which the Beirut Summit has failed to address. Many in the Israel camp argue that this proposal carries a lot less weight coming after the Palestinian Authority rejected Ehud Barak’s offer at Camp David.
            The somewhat obscure 4th section was inserted at Lebanese insistence and reflects its concern that the settlement of the refugee problem not be at what it considers the expense of Lebanon and its “demographic balance.”

            Lebanon and Syria campaigned for the inclusion of a reference to United Nations Resolution 194, which emphasizes the Palestinian right of return to Israel. A compromise was eventually reached, citing the resolution but stating that the League would support any agreement between Israel and Palestinians on the issue.”

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Arab_League_summit

            Now which bits of those facts can’t you put into perspective, Benny?

            – the API referred to UN resolution 194 which the Arabs are on the record of interpreting as an unconditional right of return.

            – their response to Peres’s suggestion of “let’s talk about it” was “take it or leave it”

            – Sharon was not as positive about it as Peres? What a surprise. The intifada was raging all around him.

            – last but not least, the league would support any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. The problem with that is that Abbas has not given up the unconditional right of return. Ya wanna argue that? Witness the fact that Abbas refused to allow Palestinian refugees from Syria to sign away their so called right of return to Israel within the green line in exchange for being allowed to seek refuge in the West Bank.

            You might also note that your heroine’s (Sawsan Khalife) attitude is the dominant attitude amongst Palestinian Arabs. They want an Arab state between the river and the sea. Hey, you admitted to as much on past threads and you even tried to justify that position.

            So tell us again please, where is the room there for us to compromise with them? Where is the middle ground?

            Reply to Comment
          • Ben

            [*chuckle*] Gustav you’re trying so hard to find reasons *not* to find common ground. You mostly sound like any ordinary Likudist to me except you try to keep up appearances. Don’t know why. The hard core rightist has surfaced often enough here that it would appear to be in vain.

            “the League would support any agreement between Israel and Palestinians on the issue.”
            –sounds pretty good to me.

            “their response to Peres’s suggestion of “let’s talk about it” was “take it or leave it”
            –this is a distortion at best.

            What does Labor being a part of Sharon’s coalition have to with mitigating the fact that Israel summarily rejected the API (twice)? You lost me there.

            It is not honest to judge Abbas approach to the RoR based on Netanyahu’s appallingly cynical, sick trick regarding the Syrian refugees. We’ve been over this.

            You mention the 2nd intifada as what you think is some kind of trump card but the API was offered as a way *out* of that morass and the morass you’re sliding into now yet again — but as always Israel prefers a military “solution” to a conflict that has no military solution because it is determined to “manage” the conflict on the only terms and in the only language it understands: force. It’s leaders have brainwashed people like you — but thankfully not people like Haggai Matar and Noam Sheizaf — to believe that anything, but a macho, contemptuous Sharon-like response shows weakness.

            The essence of Sharon’s whole approach in life was to show contempt to any overture by any Arab and in fact to openly admire the Arabs who did not show any such *weakness* and to openly castigate Jews for not being more like “the Arabs.” From his grave (on a huge hobby ranch bought with corruption money) I hear Sharon saying:

            “Noam!, Haggai!, what is a good Jewish boy like you doing undermining our Jewish unity! Sumud! Sumud! That’s the ticket! Why can’t you be more like the Arabs”? Oy. Ok, why can’t you at least be more like Gustav then?! What a good boy! He goes that extra mile to find reasons not to make “peace.” Peace Schmease! We need *more* angry stubborn naysayers, not fewer, boys!!”

            Sharon pulled out of Gaza in the East with the express intent of buying acceptance of the occupation to the West. That is, Sharon unilaterally pulled his settlers and his troops to the border and continued to occupy and control the largest open air prison in the world from the watchtowers instead of the prison grounds. (See the argument of Michael Omer-Man plus the comments of Yeah Right at Omer-Man’s article, “Gaza still occupied? New video aims to settle the debate”.)

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            Poor old Benny blustering again he just plain old ignores the points that I made, like the fact that Sawsan Khalife’s attitude is the norm amongst Palestinian Arabs. They want from the river to the sea Benny, you want me to quote her again? The last time I quoted her, even you didn’t have a thick enough skin to deny that that’s what she stands for and you tried to justify her position. Are we back to square one and you are in denial again?

            If you are then let’s just talk about Hamas. I think it is fair to say that they represent more than 50% of the Palestinian Arabs. But I tell ya what, the PA is not better. They too insist on the right of return. Otherwise how do you explain Abbas’s flat refusal to allow his Palestinians fleeing Syria to rescind that so called right even if by not signing it away they stood the chance of dying or being maimed? Any normal person (not you Benny) would draw the appropriate conclusions from that. They gotta be pretty serious about that so called right of return demand of theirs.

            Now let me address some of your silly contentions…

            To be continued

            Reply to Comment
          • Gustav

            BEN:”[*chuckle*] Gustav you’re trying so hard to find reasons *not* to find common ground.”

            Nah Benny, I just don’t live in a make believe world like you do. Is that a problem for you?

            BEN:“the League would support any agreement between Israel and Palestinians on the issue.”

            –sounds pretty good to me. ”

            Yep, that sounds good to me too. But there is a teeny weeny hitch…

            There appears to be no possible agreement so long as your darling Palestinians insist on an unconditional Right of Return and the return to the 1949 armistice lines (the 1967 boundaries).

            BEN:“their response to Peres’s suggestion of “let’s talk about it” was “take it or leave it”
            –this is a distortion at best.”

            Nope. It is a historical fact.

            Reply to Comment
    5. annie

      great article, thank you. some editorial suggestions:

      “That is the historical historical context” (just checking!)

      “It may unpleasant, but it’s also not incomprehensible.” (may be unpleasant)

      “his tendency is toward conflict is part of his nature.” (his tendency towards conflict is… http://www.promisedlandblog.com/?p=803 )

      and it’s not necessary to publish this comment (can’t recall if they are moderated here)

      Reply to Comment
    6. Gustav

      BEN:”The essence of Sharon’s whole approach in life was to show contempt to any overture by any Arab and in fact to openly admire the Arabs who did not show any such *weakness*”

      Simplistic clap-trap. Three words negate your claim. UNILATERAL GAZA WITHDRAWAL.

      Sharon was responsible for forcefully removing some of the 10,000 Jewish people from Gaza. Those people were kicking screaming and cursing him for it. But extreme leftists like you just want to skip over that inconvenient little detail which make you people lying propagandists.

      Ok, nuff said.

      Reply to Comment
      • Gustav

        BEN:”What does Labor being a part of Sharon’s coalition have to with mitigating the fact that Israel summarily rejected the API (twice)? You lost me there. ”

        Duh!!! It negates your claim that Likud is the only party which rejects the API in it’s present form.

        BEN:”It is not honest to judge Abbas approach to the RoR based on Netanyahu’s appallingly cynical, sick trick regarding the Syrian refugees. We’ve been over this. ”

        To the contrary. It is not honest to ignore such a striking fact!

        BEN:”You mention the 2nd intifada as what you think is some kind of trump card but the API was offered as a way *out* of that morass”

        You are kidding, right?!

        Something like we have you over a barrel coz we are picking you off with our suicide bombing campaign against you. So here is a noose to hang yourself with so you will die by different means (sign away the idea of the majority Jewish state and become the 23rd Arab Muslim state insted and we will treat you well – chuckle).

        BEN:”and the morass you’re sliding into now yet again — ”

        Don’t you worry about our morass. Try and worry about your darling Palestinian Arabs instead coz once again, they are busily shooting themselves in the foot while thinking that violence will get them what they want. But it will only get them misery.

        BEN:”but as always Israel prefers a military “solution” to a conflict that has no military solution

        That’s a bit rich. I suppose you are claiming that we are the ones who have been resorting to a random murder campaign of civilians by stones, knives, guns, rockets, bombs and kidnappings?

        Reply to Comment
    7. Click here to load previous comments
© 2010 - 2017 +972 Magazine
Follow Us
Credits

+972 is an independent, blog-based web magazine. It was launched in August 2010, resulting from a merger of a number of popular English-language blogs dealing with life and politics in Israel and Palestine.

Website powered by RSVP

Illustrations: Eran Mendel