Please take some time and watch Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech found at this link: http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/event.php?id=182875 In his speech he makes several statements which express his viewpoint of Israel’s claim to the land – listen for specific examples and think about why he uses certain language and why he chooses particular examples. If you have time I also highly recommend watching the 2 Senators (Graham & Schumer) – and think about where the US military may be heading next.
AIPAC 2010
Published by
Throughout his speech, Israel's Prime Minister Netanyahu was explicit about the strong support by the United States to Israel. However, the heart of his speech embraced Israel's claim to the "homeland", with additional comments regarding the need for defense as well as peace. Prior to this class I have not had much exposure to the greater extent of Israeli relations to both the United States and Israel's neighboring countries, but Netanyahu's speech was explicit in claiming Jerusalem for the Jewish people. I found his most interesting example occurring fifteen minutes into his speech, as he stated how Churchill and Roosevelt saved the world, yet they were too late to save his 6 million people – Netanyahu's way of "reserving the right to self-defense"€¦ As I look at this in the context that Israel wants to be viewed in a good light (also with historical support!) it makes sense to use this event as a bridge towards making others see the Jewish people as victims in need of returning to their homeland. It was also interesting to see how the Prime Minister went on to note major historical origins that support Israel's ownership over the land – ranging from King David declaring Jerusalem as the "capital" to citing Netanyahu's own name origin; Benjamin, son of Jacob. It seems that based on history alone, Israel has asserted it's rights to the land, while carefully criticizing opposing countries with a blanket statement of those who create "lies and vilification".
As previously mentioned, it's interesting to more closely examine Netanyahu's way with words in his speech at AIPAC. Essentially, he claims the land for the Jewish people based on history, which reflects a great discussion we had in class comparing the Israel's situation to our situation with Native Americans – how does one define "ownership"? Along these lines, Netanyahu calls for a "demilitarized Palestinian state" without referencing Israel's own militarized branch, making it seem as though Palestine is only aimed at fighting for power. The situation is vicious cycle, as peace talks are hardly manageable since the two states are unable of compromise for a common goal.
Watching the Prime Minister’s speech in the conference was more disheartening for me than it felt encouraging for the region and the United States/Israel relationship that exists. I honestly think that a lot of that has to do with what I have learned throughout this class so far in the semester. I have developed opinions of other nations that let me take their comments independent of what I think is good for the United States and the nation that I care most about. If you truly analyze the Prime Minister’s comments from an independent stance, his arguments are so divisive in many ways and directly insulting to the Palestinians that there is no choice politically by the opposing sides other than to retaliate, whether it be militarily or diplomatically. It did no constructive good for peace in the Middle East, in particular in the region surrounding Jerusalem.
Our focus as the United States is fragile in many ways because we have a political alliance and obligation to support Israel. However, I believe that if Barack Obama truly believes and wants to practice what he claims to be his “principles”, and if he is truly confident that peace can be manifested in the Middle East, he has to come out and say SOMETHING. How can he sit back and let Clinton and others take the heat and critique rebuttals when he knows that whether he thinks it should be the case or not he is the face of the United States internationally. Something has to be said critically of both the speech and Israel’s actions by Obama. If nothing is done, I truly believe that the next ten years could be even worse than the last ten years, even though we are fed by the media that progress is being made. Sides are becoming more divisive in my opinion because maybe they want the upper hand in the peace arrangements. Whatever the reason may be, I do not think that the AIPAC Conference constructively did anything but bad things for the reputation of the United States globally. Israel knows we are on their side. If everyone truly wants peace, there is nothing wrong with maintaining that Palestinians have rights as well.
Netanyahu’s speech was disappointing to me as well. There are many times during his speech where his comments show his lack of perspective and an unwillingness to acknowledge the opposing viewpoint. I think that part of this can be attributed to the audience, which was clearly Pro-Israeli. It is possible that Netanyahu decided that the best way for his cause to be heard would be to fire up Pro-Israeli support and get more money for AIPAC lobbyists instead of dealing with our government directly. If this is the case, it is certainly a poor commentary on the political system in this country.
If more people in this country heard the other side of the story, even if they took it with a grain of salt and considered the source, America might not be as politically aligned with Israel as they are now. Personally, seeing videos of Israeli soldier’s scaring a Palestinian child to the point the he where soils himself, while holding a US made assault rifle made me sick and embarrassed.
I, like most Americans, would like to know more about this issue and how out leaderships feels about it. Our President has used the liberal media biases to his advantage in the past. He should use them again to gain an audience to voice his concerns and perspective on this issue.
My initial feeling after listening to Prime Minister Netayahu is that he is a very influential and collected public speaker. However, I found it somewhat concerning that the Prime Minister used those attributes to convey unwavering Israeli support in a very one-sided view, despite the fact it was given at a conference focusing on peace and resolution.
“Everyone knows, everyone. Americans, Europeans, Israelis certainly, Palestinians… Everyone knows that these neighborhoods will be part of Israel in any peace settlement.” This quote was taken from near the end of the Prime Minister’s speech. I feel it sums up the general direction of the speech and Israel’s position on any sort of peace settlement. This quote shows that Netayahu completely disregards the opinions and viewpoint of the Palestinians. Also, he sets the goals of Israel in any sort of peace agreement, doing so stubbornly, and seeming as if Israel would accept nothing less than their own terms.
Netayahu made many historical references and made the point that the Jewish history in Israel cannot be denied. And he is right. However, he seems ignore the history of any other ethnicity or group of people in that region. Unfortunately for Netayahu, the peace process considers more than just history. And a resolution based purely upon history or an unfair or uneven peace settlement surely won’t be allowed to happen. It seems there is still much to be discussed and decided on this issue. Hopefully negotiations are more open than Netayahu’s speech.
In his speech given at AIPAC, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu uses history to gather sentiments from the audience for the Jewish people and to Justify Israel's existence. I, however, do not think it is completely right to rely on past events for justification. For example, he refers to the holocaust to touch the emotions of the audience. He states that the biggest threat to a nation is not recognizing danger in time. He is ultimately referring to WWII and the Holocaust. He says that Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt saved the world in WWII; however, he fails to recognize Russia's help or involvement in the matter. I feel this is not right on his part because it was the Russians who sacrificed the most casualties in WWII, to ultimately save his Jewish people.
Netanyahu also uses history to justify Israel as a Jewish state. He refers to the description of the Jews as foreign colonialists in their own homeland as "one of the great lies of modern times." He uses his ring example to justify this. He was given a ring found by the Western Wall dating back 2800 years ago. It belonged to another Jew named Netanyahu. He uses this example to prove that "the connection between the Jewish people and the land of Israel cannot be denied." I believe that his pro-Israel audience is too easy to convince. This example would not have worked out so smoothly when given in another context. There are many who believe that history of occupation is not a good enough reason to justify a nation. And rightly so, there should really be other factors that should go into deciding the legitimacy of a nation.
Prime Minister Netanyahu would likely label me an anti-Semite, but I felt myself shocked at some of the statements he made at AIPAC.
His repetitive reference to Israel's self-defense seemed not entirely true. Israel would not exist without the help of the United States (and the Soviet Union, as Kevin pointed out in class–something I didn't know before) and likely would be helpless without our continued support. What he should have said instead of "Israel has the right to defend itself" is "Israel has a right to keep receiving aid from America." Also, his comment about Ahmadinejad calling Israel a "one-bomb country" is not old news. In fact, I couldn't even find the original quote from Ahmadenijad anywhere on the Internet–just him quoted hundreds of times on pro-Israel blogs.
Israel is not nearly "open to criticism" as the Prime Minister noted. If they were, they would listen to the United Nations and the United States when we advised that they stop building settlements in Palestinian territories.
His rhetoric was strong and clearly written to evoke emotions in the listeners. He was trying to appeal to people's emotions instead of the realities and, most importantly, the future of Israel.
The last ridiculous argument he made was about the "Netanyahu" ring found by an archaeologist in Israel. Yes, King David established Palestine (Judea) as the Jewish homeland 3,000 years ago, but that does not necessarily give the Jewish people a right to the region now.
Clearly I am not arguing that there is not a historical connection between Judaism and Israel. But there are also strong connections to Christianity and Islam, and a historical connection does not give anybody the right to illegally occupy territory like Israel is doing.
PM Netanyahu is deliberate about reminding us of the realities of the Holocaust, of God’s promise of the Holy Land, and the Jews historical presence in Israel. This is important not only because of the 6 million + Jews who lost their lives, but because for some, the Jewish hope and dream for safety for all Jews is now tied up with the State of Israel. One can only hope that we remain sensitive to this and don’t ever imply that their fears are unfounded. I recommend that everyone who hasn’t seen “Life is Beautiful” PN1997.V578 1999b or “Schindler’s List” PN1995.9.W3 S415 2004 at the UR library. I will give extra credit for a thoughtful reflection of both films.
Hopefully, being critical of some of Israel’s current policies doesn’t require denying the Holocaust or the particular realities facing the Jewish State. At the same time, as many of you have pointed out, there are other histories and other geographies that are just as real. Those other realities include not only those citizens living in the Occupied Territories under Israeli control, but also hundreds of thousands of people living in UN refugee camps in neighboring countries.
The good news is that we are trying to learn about these contested spaces and multiple perspectives. On Weds., April 14th, we will be blessed with the presence of Shari Motro, a professor from the Law School – who is also Israeli. This will be a fantastic opportunity for us and I’m so grateful that she has agreed to join us. Please be sure you have marked your syllbaus with this important date as I have changed my conference plans to accommodate this visit.