Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, at the young age of 28, understood and explained in a short video the reason why there was no peace in the Middle East and the error of assuming that a “two-state solution” would bring peace:
Comments
Troybeamsays
I respect this man for defending Israel even though he takes a lot of crap from people, he is steadfast in his protecting the nation.
࿗Infidel࿘says
One thing he’s been proven wrong on is this “right of the Arabs to elect their own representatives and government”. We saw how that has worked in Gaza, how that did work briefly in Egypt in 2011 when Morsi came to power, how it has worked in Iraq. The countries that he’s signed the Abraham Accords w/ are all authoritarian regimes, like Bahrein, where a Wahabi dynasty rules over a shi’a majority w/ an iron fist. Emirates & Oman may be exceptions, but wherever Arabs get the opportunity to elect their government, they end up producing one whose leaders are more similar to Nasser, Saddam, Hafez Assad and Gaddafi, rather than leaders like King Hussein or the current rulers of the Emirates or Bahrein
Although Netanyahu has been very good for Israel, he does have 2 Achilles heels:
➤ In all his stints as prime minister, he has been willing to make “land for peace” concessions to the Palestinians. Granted, a lot of it was due to pressure from the likes of Clinton and Obama, but a strong leader should simply have asked the US whether they wanted the alliance w/ Israel or not
➤ Netanyahu was also a supporter of the Sharansky doctrine, which stated that if a country became democratic (as in more accountable to its people, as opposed to mob rule), that its people would automatically want peace. This may have worked in Latin America, where a post Galtieri Argentina was no longer interested in going to war over the Falklands. However, it was never gonna work in a setting where the countries in question were muslim, as was emphatically proven in both Afghanistan and Iraq
Netanyahu is a good leader, but I disagree w/ Alan Dershowitz who called him Israel’s Sir Winston Churchill. Both Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were far better leaders. I recall in 1982 or 83, when the US heavily criticized Israel after the massacre in 2 Pali refugee camps near Beirut, Begin made a speech lambasting the US. Also, whenever there was a jihadist attack on Israel, Begin or Shamir would respond by escalating the settlements built in Judea and Samaria. That is what Netanyahu ought to have done as well, but rarely, if ever did!
James Lincolnsays
࿗Infidel࿘ says,
“In all his stints as prime minister, he has been willing to make “land for peace” concessions to the Palestinians.”
Yes.
Big mistake – and Israel is still paying for it big time.
Discover more from
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
Troybeam says
I respect this man for defending Israel even though he takes a lot of crap from people, he is steadfast in his protecting the nation.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
One thing he’s been proven wrong on is this “right of the Arabs to elect their own representatives and government”. We saw how that has worked in Gaza, how that did work briefly in Egypt in 2011 when Morsi came to power, how it has worked in Iraq. The countries that he’s signed the Abraham Accords w/ are all authoritarian regimes, like Bahrein, where a Wahabi dynasty rules over a shi’a majority w/ an iron fist. Emirates & Oman may be exceptions, but wherever Arabs get the opportunity to elect their government, they end up producing one whose leaders are more similar to Nasser, Saddam, Hafez Assad and Gaddafi, rather than leaders like King Hussein or the current rulers of the Emirates or Bahrein
Although Netanyahu has been very good for Israel, he does have 2 Achilles heels:
➤ In all his stints as prime minister, he has been willing to make “land for peace” concessions to the Palestinians. Granted, a lot of it was due to pressure from the likes of Clinton and Obama, but a strong leader should simply have asked the US whether they wanted the alliance w/ Israel or not
➤ Netanyahu was also a supporter of the Sharansky doctrine, which stated that if a country became democratic (as in more accountable to its people, as opposed to mob rule), that its people would automatically want peace. This may have worked in Latin America, where a post Galtieri Argentina was no longer interested in going to war over the Falklands. However, it was never gonna work in a setting where the countries in question were muslim, as was emphatically proven in both Afghanistan and Iraq
Netanyahu is a good leader, but I disagree w/ Alan Dershowitz who called him Israel’s Sir Winston Churchill. Both Menachem Begin and Yitzhak Shamir were far better leaders. I recall in 1982 or 83, when the US heavily criticized Israel after the massacre in 2 Pali refugee camps near Beirut, Begin made a speech lambasting the US. Also, whenever there was a jihadist attack on Israel, Begin or Shamir would respond by escalating the settlements built in Judea and Samaria. That is what Netanyahu ought to have done as well, but rarely, if ever did!
James Lincoln says
࿗Infidel࿘ says,
“In all his stints as prime minister, he has been willing to make “land for peace” concessions to the Palestinians.”
Yes.
Big mistake – and Israel is still paying for it big time.