Skip to main content

Recently, I read the following in +972mag.com, "A few weeks ago, a well-known Israeli politician visited one of the large daily newspapers. During a meeting there, this person discussed his meetings with a top-level official in the U.S. administration. “Do the Americans know that the window of opportunity to influence Israelis ends on January 22?” the politician was asked. The answer he gave was somewhat positive."

It seems that the Israeli politician got it right: in an article for Bloomberg, Jewish-American journalist Jeffrey Goldberg quoted White House sources that blamed Israel for not knowing “what its own best interests are.” Goldberg went on to say that:

“The president seems to view the prime minister as a political coward, an essentially unchallenged leader who nevertheless is unwilling to lead or spend political capital to advance the cause of compromise.”
Well this is one that Jeffrey Goldberg called right.  Netanyahu is a political coward, pandering to the extreme religious Orthodox Jewry, pandering to well, essentially anyone, for the sole purpose of getting their vote.  In addition, Netanyahu and it seems, the State of Israel, doesn't know what is in their best interest.

Their best interest of the State of Israel and its' citizens served would be to stop playing the victim, to stop demonizing the Palestinian population, to ensure that the law is followed and settlers cannot abuse Palestinians and to truly embrace the two-state solution in order to serve the interests of Israel's populace.  The best interest of the State of Israel would be to honestly negotiate a two-state solution, rather ensure to push just enough to garner a reaction from the Palestinians and then claim how unreasonable they are.  It would be in the best interest of the State of Israel to stop creating facts on the ground and all settlement building.  It would be Israel's best interest to stop incursions into Gaza, stop escalation of violent conflict and start acting like the democracy it claims to be.

The continued narrative told in the voice of the victim is no longer credible.  The internet and the bombardment of news we now receive, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, has made the world much smaller.  It has allowed for us to see both side of the equation, not just a biased, one sided presentation where the perpetual victim, Israel, continually fights off threats of extermination and annihilation by the crazed "Arabs".  The global community has begun to understand who, in this scenario, is the victim and who is willing to forgo a ceasefire, a chance for true peace and the security of its citizens for one simple reason, land expansionism.  The world is tiring of histrionics, continued conflict and the use of semantic game playing while Israel attempts to find a "technical reason" to justify the denial of  basic, fundamental human rights of another people.

The first massacre on Gaza, Operation Cast Lead and its sequel, Operation of Pillar Defense, left a bad taste in the mouths of all, including much of American Jewry, with the exception of die hard absolutists who will support Israel's antics without reservation.  Reading from an obscure newspaper about an attack on a Palestinian village is one thing, but seeing it live, loud and in vivid colour on a 48" television is another thing. I recall there was a time, not too long ago, no one knew what a Palestinian was.  For the few that had a basic, remote understanding,  it conjured up was images of Arafat, keffiyeh in place, in all of his glory, the taking of Jerusalem and images of Fiddler on the Roof.

As late as 1984, Joan Peters' full blown bestseller, From Time Immemorial, a debunked hoax which presented a narrative of an empty land without people and a people without land was the accepted historical record.  It wasn't questioned by the public, by academia and was so acclaimed it won the 1985 National Jewish Book Award.  Until Norman Finkelstein painfully dissected the myths Peters' propagated and found her conclusions were not supported by the data she presented.  It was not until the book was published in the United Kingdom, upon, where it was quickly demolished and discredited, did the American world of publishing back away from this debacle.  As Robert Olson stated in the American Historical Review in November of 1985, "This is a startling and disturbing book. It is startling because, despite the author's professed ignorance of the historiography of the Arab-Israeli conflict and lack of knowledge of Middle Eastern history (pp. 221, 335) coupled with her limitation to sources largely in English (absolutely no Arab sources are used), she engages in the rewriting of history on the basis of little evidence. ...The undocumented numbers in her book in no way allow for the wild and exaggerated assertions that she makes or for her conclusion. This book is disturbing because it seems to have been written for purely polemical and political reasons: to prove that Jordan is the Palestinian state. This argument, long current among revisionist Zionists, has regained popularity in Israel and among Jews since the Likud party came to power in Israel in 1977."  While we still have a great number of people who still spout off Joan Peters' mumbo, jumbo (some actually believe it), informed, sane individuals dismiss this as the hogwash it actually is.  One can easily check out a book which details the historical record by Israeli Jewish historians that easily debunks Peters' narrative.

As more and more people tire of Israel's use of disproportionate force, antagonization of the Palestinians, arrogance, failure to heed international law and continual confrontational stance, the more Israel will become isolated.  If Bibi cared more about the State of Israel than he cared about re-election and land expansionism, we then could apply the word hero.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (6+ / 0-)

    Canadian mother of four, works at Canadian University, blogs and co-host of Blog Talk Radio's "Lies My Country Told Me" with co-host and love of my life, Fred Lemon.

    by mmayer on Wed Jan 16, 2013 at 08:29:46 PM PST

  •  al Jazeera now has an American outlet for (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jasan, WattleBreakfast

    its news since it acquired Current TV.  It will be interesting to see if al Jazeera America will be able to change any opinions.
    Bibi is an opportunist; that has been obvious since Day One.  He is also locked into decisions made by earlier administrations.  For example, Sharon realized Israel faces a demographic problem.  On the one hand, there is a burgeoning Palestinian population in both Israel and the OT.  Despite efforts to prevent OT Palestinians from becoming Israeli Palestinians, there still appeared to be a demographic time bomb.  Building settlements has been an unsatisfactory solution because while it gives Israel the chance to acquire additional territories, the down side is that there are not enough settlers to fully occupy these new areas and the cost to the government of supporting such settlements.  Sharon recognized settlements as a stop gap measure at best.

    Sharon finally decided the only way to prevent a future wave of nonJewish Israelis was to construct a wall which would block out all OT Palestinians, establish a permanent border for Israel, and prevent terrorist infiltrations.

    The problem with the wall long term is it represents a bunker mentality and for a nation to flourish in an international economy, it is essential for that nation to embrace open trade and as few barriers as possible.  The wall is a step backwards from this goal  

    •  The Sharon Tactic (0+ / 0-)

      My take on Sharon is that he realized that he could sate the international pressure of negotiations towards a two state solution by giving up Gaza which wasn't really the prize anyway.  Well Sharon was stating the withdrawal “does not replace negotiations,” or “permanently freeze the situation", his right hand man, Dov Weinglass was gloating, “The significance of Sharon’s plan is the freezing of the peace process. The Disengagement Plan actually supplies the formaldehyde into which all other [peace] plans can be put.”

      Canadian mother of four, works at Canadian University, blogs and co-host of Blog Talk Radio's "Lies My Country Told Me" with co-host and love of my life, Fred Lemon.

      by mmayer on Fri Jan 18, 2013 at 03:10:20 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  If Bibi wins.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8

    If Bibi wins the election, peace between the Palistinians and Israel is lost.

    The honest, whole, frank, harsh truth.

    There will be too much pain, suffering, loss, and destruction to make amends for when he is allowed a blank cheque to do what he wants.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site