He's one of those people I generally don't want to listen to because I know I'll be pretty upset by the end. Bush 43 was one, but at least there was a good chance he'd say something unintentionally funny as well.
Netanyahu can win an election by saying he will not accept a two state solution, let him stroll on over to our Congress to conduct diplomacy right under our noses outside of proper diplomatic channels, slap the leader of the free world in the face* and still be considered a partner for peace. Palestinians want equal rights and compensation for past wrongs and fair dealings and they are considered not a partner for peace, terrorists absent from the negotiating table while Israel is allegedly sitting patiently, eternally, faithfully with many a generous offer.
*Why was that stunt even necessary? Obama still panders to them and our stances toward Israel haven't changed one bit. Link added 3/23/15. They are still violating human rights with the same reckless abandon as during Republican administrations. I guess they'd rather not get that occasional verbal slap ion the wrist- Uh. excuse me kind sirs, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't deprive people of food and build illegal settlements. You're being unhelpful.
So the two state solution is off the table for him. What now? One state where he has to concede and give not just human rights, but equal rights to Palestinians as Jewish Israelis have. Good. Now we're closer to the actual definition of apartheid and we have a precedent for dismantling that and making reparations. Can it be that easy?
Oh he claims to still be in favor of a two state solution of sorts, only that it is unachievable. What a relief! How generous! He dictated the terms of his two state solution in a 2009 speech to Bar-Ilan University. Your partner for peace dictated the terms and if he doesn't get his way, he'll pack up and go home and claim you left first. You want equality and human rights, he wants to ethnically cleanse "his" land of all of you and for you to recognize this as his God given right. And oh by the way- you also cannot have any armies or weapons to defend yourselves. Because he cannot have that, you are the problem and obviously not fit to be at the table. Come back when you are ready to unconditionally accept this subjugation we started with the occupation of your land.
That is exactly what he wants- the status quo, occupation. He says in the interview that he doesn't want a one state solution or a no state solution and he's put such unreasonable terms on his two state solution that no sane person will accept it, so he wants to continually subjugate an entire population with all the human rights and international law violations, settlements, mass arrests, closures, checkpoints, embargo, illegal settlements, wall, denying of medical care and education, visa complications, family separations and generally making life as miserable as possible.
His apparently urged Jews to vote because he heard Arabs were voting in droves. He claimed this was an attempt to topple his government, then corrected himself saying it was foreign money he was concerned about. This from the guy who has AIPAC and the Republican party pouring money and propagating whatever propaganda and lies he wants them to!! Israel was built on foreign money and is sustained on foreign money and support. Imagine- well don't. Remember. Remember 50 years ago or yesterday, white people being urged to vote because black people are voting in droves. You can smell the stench now, can't you?
His reaction to the charge of Israel's growing isolation was predictable and totally without substance. The one thing he did say is an out and out lie. He's done a lot for peace and frozen settlements. Here's a little on the latter. The former would take up too much space and I've probably already covered it elsewhere on the blog anyway.
The graph in this link shows how "frozen" settlements managed to spike in population and records numerous announcements of settlement building, calling into question the meaning of frozen. Maybe halting new construction on them for a month or two qualifies in his book. The legal requirement is for all settlements to be dismantled and settlers to go back home to Israel or Europe or wherever they came from (Israel has been known to recruit specifically for settlements and even convert people to Judaism for that purpose.) or feel free to stay and suffer the consequences of squatting illegally on someone's olive groves or farm land or back yard.
After that, the interview kind of devolves, with Inskeep trying to catch Netanyahu in his double speak, or at least clarify his position, which is impossible and Netanyahu insulting him after dodging the question of course.
"I'm saying I don't think that's the obstacle for a peace deal. I don't think it ever was. In effect, if you followed this election, which you may have if you were here."
He alternately speaks of not removing settlements and freezing them, being a partner for peace and removing some and instead moving borders to accommodate settlements and that didn't really clear anything up.
Asked again point blank if he's a two stater, Netanyahu again says he doesn't want one state as an answer to this. Erekat has recognized Israel and the media is actually noticing and not letting Israel say Palestinians want to throw them into the sea so why should we sit down at a table with them. Now they actually have to answer some questions. (Or not.) He repeats his demand that the Palestinian state is to be demilitarized, now, not just recognize Israel, if it is to exist. Funny how recognition used to be the sticking point. Now that it is common knowledge that Palestinians and Arabs recognize Israel, up crops another condition. Demilitarization. The right of a sovereign nation, but not for you. You can't defend yourselves. Can you accept that? Didn't think so. We'll wait here being generous at the table and you greedy Arabs can come back when you're ready to be a sucker-- uh-- partner, I mean partner.
And they end with a discussion of "actual" recognition versus what Netanyahu thinks Erekat is doing in recognizing Israel. Actual recognition apparently means Palestinians are to drop the right of return demand which is their right and part of any just solution. If we accept that Jews get the right of return after 2000 years in a more philosophical or religious concession, Palestinians absolutely deserve the right of return to houses and lands they and their fathers remember.
And of course our friend Bibi ends with:
"We want to see an end to the conflict and that's something they are never willing to say."
By end to the conflict, Netanyahu means, accept our terms for your "state" and stay outside of the borders we choose for ours, drop all claims and grievances in exchange for. . . what did you think, freedom, autonomy, sovereignty? Nooo, a kinder, gentler occupation provided you stay under our thumb properly.
I just love how he caps off the lies and question dodging with the ever popular dis-proven childish refrain-- we want peace and they don't (so there).