. Last
week, Channel 2 anchorwoman Ilana Dayan interviewed U.S. Secretary of
State John Kerry. It is a good idea to go back to the interview and
listen to the one-sided questions, the lack of any criticism of Kerry
and the fact that at no point in the interview did Dayan mention, even
subtly, the claim of our right to this land.
Once we have done that,
we can see how the interview was part of a public relations effort by
the State Department -- with significant assistance from Yedioth
Ahronoth and Haaretz -- to convince us that Kerry is a wonderful friend
of Israel and that we had better listen to his advice and accept his
plan for national suicide. All through the interview, Dayan took a line
that described Kerry as sensitive, determined, brave and patriotic; she
even used a Jewish connection in her profile of Kerry, savior of
humanity (yes, the Messiah).
Here is one of her
quotes: "John Kerry is the initiator, the public-relations person and
the architect of these talks. It may be that he will change history. It
may be that history will defeat him. But he will not let it pass him
by." Wow. Dramatic music and fade.
Dayan elaborated on
Kerry's military background in Vietnam -- "He was wounded three times
and received two medals for bravery. On his desk is a photograph of his
best friend, who bled to death in the rice fields of Vietnam. ... Do you
still carry your dogtags with you?" -- so that we understand that he
knows what an army is and what war is, so we can entrust our future to
him. He mentions Yitzhak Rabin and Ariel Sharon -- "Nobody will teach us
what security is or what Zionism is." That was how the Oslo Accords and
the disengagement were marketed to us. So, they weren't wrong?
"Everybody knows the
end game," Dayan said to Kerry. This is a typical left-wing statement
that means: Everybody knows that in the end, Jerusalem will be divided
and the Palestinians will receive all of Judea and Samaria (except for
the settlement blocs), and so on.
Well, no, not everybody
knows that. Many serious people think differently. So far, the
solutions proposed by the left-wing camp have pushed us to the edge of
the abyss. Like the rest of her fellow journalists, Dayan resists being
described as belonging to any "political camp." After all, she is from
the U.N. and has no political agenda that receives prominence on her
program. But that is the root of the lie that has been stuffed down the
Israeli public's throat -- supposedly, there is a press that reports the
news and is objective and free of political ambitions, and there is a
press that is right-wing. That is not true at all.
But let us turn our
attention to Dayan's question: "Everybody knows the end game. But I
wonder now whether you can understand the fear of Israelis? Do you
understand that many Israelis feel that no deal is better than a bad
deal because it might could blow up in our faces the next day?" There it
was, right in front of our faces: the word "fear." Not rights, not the
historical and religious connection, not the core of the justification
of the Zionist movement. Who talks about that on television? Just
"fear." A security-related conversation that pushed aside the discourse
about the Jewish people's right to their land. That is the only way to
numb the public's awareness, since if security is the only issue we are
dealing with, then we can build another warning station and bring
hundreds of American military experts who "know better than we" how to
make sure that this time, the deal "will not blow up in our faces."
2. Dayan insisted on
asking the ingratiating question: "Is there any chance that you will
lose hope on this one? Is there a chance that, at a certain point, you
will tell Abu Mazen [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas] and
Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu, 'I've had enough -- if you have any
news, you can call me'?" The assumption implicit in the question is
part and parcel of the left wing's relentless efforts to bring
international pressure upon us so that the non-Jews will save us from
ourselves, because the Jews have gone mad and they are choosing life
over political suicide.
Kerry, of course,
reassured us. "I'm an optimist," he said. "I believe Israel will get so
much stronger and so much more prosperous. There is so much benefit that
could come to the citizens of Israel and the West Bank Palestinian
territories and the region. I've had an Arab foreign minister say to me
in a private meeting of the Arab community that if we're able to make
peace, Israel will be the powerhouse economy and do more business with
the Arab world than they currently do with Europe." You heard it, Jews:
You will have more money if you give up the land of your lives.
On second thought, it
seems to me that Kerry is quoting from President Shimon Peres'
monumental book, "The New Middle East," as if nothing had happened in
this region in recent years. What lack of modesty toward history and
toward the ancient cultures of the region. Of course, there is no doubt
that the moment we become weaker, the Arab states will stand in line to
do business with us.
As proof, Dayan brought in Chuck Todd of MSNBC, which, over here, is like bringing in someone to the left of Haaretz.
"Would you bet on him
[Kerry]?" Dayan asked, and Todd replied: "I'd reverse the question.
Would you bet on Netanyahu?" Dayan responded, "It all comes back to
Bibi." It does not come back to a thousand and one political, cultural,
security-related, religious, historical and political factors. Just
"Bibi." Nice. Two left-wing journalists from opposite sides of the
planet agree that if the talks blow up, it will be Israel's fault.
3. Then, after the
interview, came the debate in the studio. Dayan brought in negotiations
head Tzipi Livni and, for a bit of variety, commentator Amnon
Abramovich, who attacked Livni -- from the left. What a surprise. Even
Abramovich agreed that it all comes back to Netanyahu, "who does not
have the courage to do what he does not believe in -- withdraw."
How naive of me. I had
thought that it took courage to stand up to the U.S., Europe and our own
backsliding elite, and to tell all of them: "No!" Did it take courage
for Livni to change political camps? She only gained by it; all over the
world, she is treated like the new Peres. The Israeli media extol her
as a paragon of moderation and good judgment, giving her the kind of
praise normally reserved for those who discovered the primordial light
that has been hidden since the six days of creation.
Could it be that this
is not only about courage, but also about a deep historical perspective?
Finally, someone who thinks differently from the choir was brought to
the studio: former cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser. He said that what Kerry
and Netanyahu had in common was that they thought in historical terms,
something quite rare in a political system that mostly worships the
present. The difference, Hauser added, was that Kerry was managing the
risks of another, while Netanyahu was managing our own.
At that, Abramovich
jumped in and spoke against the demand to recognize Israel as the
national home of the Jewish people, adding that there were risks to
balance those that Hauser had mentioned: a binational state, boycotts,
international isolation, and so on. Oh, dear.
In response, Hauser
said that Abramovich was living in the past, since a binational state
could come into existence even with a ratio of 80 percent Jews to 20
percent non-Jews. If a peace agreement is reached, the heavy weapons
will turn toward Israel's inside. They will seek to strip Israel of its
Jewish characteristics and turn it into a "state of all its citizens" --
an Israeli invention for the idea of "a state of all its
nationalities."
That is why no agreement can be
reached without Palestinian recognition of Israel as the national home
of the Jewish people. This recognition is not for us, but for the
Palestinians. Without it, the right of return will remain in place and
there will be no end to the conflict.
No comments:
Post a Comment