By Moran Azulay, Yitzhak Benhorin, Elior Levy, YNET
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Monday garnered mixed responses from US officials, Palestinian legislators and from Knesset members across the political spectrum, with right-wing MKs lauding Netanyahu for exposing what they called “Abbas’s true face,” while those on the left side of the map termed the speech “an official seal of Netanyahu’s failure”.
In his speech, the prime minister drew a link between the threat Israel faces from Hamas in Gaza, to the threat the international community at large faces from the Islamic State. “Hamas, like the Islamic State, wants a caliphate,” he said.
‘Islamic State different from Hamas’
The United States was reluctant to accept Netanyahu’s comparison between Hamas and Islamic State.
“We don’t believe that Prime Minister Netanyahu or anyone else from Israel is suggesting that the United States launch a military campaign against Hamas,” US State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki said during a press briefing.
“They are both designated terrorist organizations under the United States designations, but certainly we see differences in terms of the threat and otherwise,” Psaki added.
Psaki also rejected Netanyahu’s assertion that Hamas, ISIS, Iran, Hezbollah, Boko Haram and other militant Islamist groups all want the same thing – a Muslim caliphate dominating the world.
In his speech, Netanyahu called on the six world powers negotiating with Iran over its disputed nuclear program – the US among them – to demand full dismantling of Tehran’s centrifuges.
Psaki reiterated that Washington shares Israel’s concerns about Iran becoming a nuclear threshold country, but said she did not share Netanyahu’s view that Iran was a bigger threat than ISIS.
“Obviously we’re spending a great deal of time and energy because we are concerned, as is Israel, about Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon … we’re equally concerned about the threat of ISIL, given all of the energy that we’re putting into that,” she said.
Netanyahu also warned the international community of Iran’s “charm offensive,” saying that “once Iran produces atomic bombs the charm and smiles will disappear.”
Psaki, however, insisted Iran’s PR campaign would not have any impact on the nature of the nuclear deal reached with it.
“I can assure anyone that an agreement reached would not be based on a charm offensive or how that impacts us, but on the facts and the details. And we’re not going to agree to a comprehensive agreement that doesn’t meet our standards and meet our threshold,” she said. “Our negotiation and our discussion … (are) about the facts and the details and what a final technical package would look like.”
‘Blatant manipulation of facts’
As expected, the Palestinian delegation was quick to condemn Netanyahu’s speech. “Blaming the victim has always been the failed policy of the politically and morally bankrupt, and Netanyahu is no exception,” said PLO Executive Committee Member Dr. Hanan Ashrawi.
“Netanyahu’s speech at the UN was a blatant manipulation of facts and attempted at misleading the audience through a combination of hate language, slander and argument of obfuscation,” Ashrawi went on to say.
“On the one hand he attempted to create an image of an unreal polarized world in which the ‘forces of evil’ are lumped together under the title ‘militant Islam’ blurring any distinctions among different players, including Hamas and Iran, while placing Israel in the opposite pole as a force for ‘light, morality and justice,'” she said.
“Obviously Netanyahu has lost touch with reality,” Ashrawi accused, “particularly in refusing to acknowledge the fact of the occupation itself or the actions of the Israeli army of occupation in committing massacres and war crimes, which has been a longstanding manifestation of Israeli ‘double talk.’
“Rather than attacking President Abbas and the UN Human Rights Council for calling things by their name and deploring the horrific actions of the Israeli occupation, he should have acknowledged the enormity of the crime and taken responsibility for the actions themselves.”
According to Ashrawi, “The UN podium would have been the most appropriate place for Netanyahu to announce his acceptance of all relevant UN resolutions … Instead, he persisted in compounding the error by justifying Israeli violations and launching a vitriolic attack against the victims of the ongoing occupation.”
Ashrawi called Netanyahu’s statement, that Israel was willing to work with the Arab world in order to help facilitate Israeli-Palestinian peace, an attempt to “circumvent … the need to withdraw to the 1967 borders to establish the two-state solution.”
She charged that this was an attempt of “buying more time to create facts that will destroy the chances of peace for the foreseeable future.”
Domestic criticism
In Israel, Netanyahu’s speech sparked both harsh criticism and strong praise. Coalition chairman Yariv Levin (Likud) lauded the prime minister: “In his speech, Netanyahu ripped the mask off the face of the leader of the Palestinian Authority and proved that Abbas is a partner of Hamas and not a partner for peace.”
Chairman of the Foreign Affairs and Defense committee MK Ze’ev Elkin (Likud) also praised the speech, saying it was “a proper response” to the “slander and lies” in Abbas’ UN speech earlier this week.
“I urge the prime minister and the cabinet to move from words to actions. Abbas must know that an ongoing war of vilification against Israel in the international arena will exact a painful price that he and his leadership will have to pay.”
Likud MK Ofir Akunis said that “while Abbas delivered a speech of lies, the prime minister gave a speech of truth. As always, the truth is stronger and more effective than any false propaganda.”
Left-wing MKs were mostly critical of Netanyahu’s UN address. Opposition Chairman Isaac Herzog said that “Netanyahu knows how to deliver a speech and I agreed with quite a few of his statements, but the problem is that the world is not listening to him.”
“It is unclear which Netanyahu we should believe: the one who speaks about political compromise, or the one who, during five years of his term, did not do a thing towards promoting a political initiative.”
Labor MK Omer Bar-Lev also denounced the prime minister’s speech, saying it was “suitable for a Likud party conference and not for the General Assembly.”
MK Eitan Cabel (Labor) expressed similar views: “We already knew that Netanyahu is a talented copywriter, but Israel doesn’t need a copywriter, but a leader. Netanyahu chose to be right instead of smart.”
MK Ahmad Tibi had harsher words for the prime minister, saying that the speech “lacked political content” and that it “came from a leader who is frustrated with the fact that the world is not accepting his two main claims about the Islamic State and Iran.”
Tibi further said that “the claim that Abbas wants a Palestinian state that is free of Jews is false and cynical.”
Responding to Netanyahu’s statement that the IDF “upholds the highest moral values of any army in the world”, Tibi said that “the army of occupation cannot be moral since that would be an oxymoron.”
Meretz leader MK Zahava Gal-on also slammed the speech, saying “it was the same old speech of threats, intimidations and comparisons between the Islamic State, Hamas and Iran. A comparison no one in the world considers as valid.”
“This speech,” the Merez chairwoman said, “is the official seal of Netanyahu’s utter failure to rescue Israel from the endless cycle of bloodshed and violence.”
She added that “Netanyahu should have taken advantage of the opportunity and declare before the UN that he is accepting the Arab League’s initiative. He didn’t have to travel all the way to the UN for a self-victimizing whining campaign.”
@ ppksky:
That’s me I am so patronizing. But dishonest is insulting.
Well ppk we live in the age of mouse and click instant knowledge. You are familiar with the adage a picture is worth a thousand words. Well so is citing the reference and I do believe after the most exerting effort to click once or twice you will arrive at my argument and it does save so much effort and time. I had hoped your own intellectual curiosity would have compelled you to check my reference.
That makes you intellectual unintellectual as you stand on principle and not arriving at the truth or to increase your own knowledge. It’s not about somebody’s work it is about a philosophic principle with practical implications that largely if not totally refute your positions.
Can’t stand intellectually lazy hard asses.
yamit82 Said:
I’ll never know.
It is intellectually dishonest and more than a little patronizing to suggest that somebody labor to make your arguments for you. Especially when it involves somebody else’s work. It is best form to cite references after making an argument and not cite references instead of an argument.
ppksky Said:
no and I did and Nada.
At least mine is real and relevant to your comment.
yamit82 Said:
Ever heard of the “Yazinsky Yarblockle effect”? If you haven’t look it up.
@ ppksky:
Ever heard of the “Bradbury Butterfly effect”? If you haven’t look it up.
If Israel argues that Jerusalem was a divine gift to the Jewish people and therefore Israel lacks the right to surrender any of it, it will place Obama in a difficult domestic political position.
Along those lines, BB should present the conflict as being Jewish/Muslim, because that is shaky ground for Barack Hussein Obama.
Insofar as Judaism being the justifying factor in Israel’s existence, what is the justifying factor in France’s existence?
Jerry Lewis worship?
yamit82 Said:
How do you know what the pluses or minuses are if you don’t care whether you are right? And if you know you are right, how can you even discuss the pluses and minuses if you don’t speak to what is right?
Being right is the only kind of smart there is. There is no other, being right is the key to intelligence itself. If being smart doesn’t mean being right, there is no point to intelligence at all.
@ ppksky:
Because although being right there are consequences and then it becomes weighing pluses against minuses.
@ drjb:
I know doc I’m struggling but I am persistent. Long time since my HS Spanish and even though I lived in Spain for 6 months I’ve forgotten just about everything. I lways get my tenses mixed up for one,
write to me in Spanish so I can practice. When I set my mind to do something I do it. Old army habit.
Be well amigo.
@ yamit82:
Sderot Biden??? Ramat Obama???? Why not?? 🙂
Anything to show those shleppers that Israel is in charge of Israel!!
By the way, your spanish esta muy bueno! NOT!!
My best wishes to you and yours for a gmar chatima tova!
Being right is the only kind of smart there is. How can you be wrong and smart?
I was very disappointed by BB’s speech.
If BB would like to provide ‘yours truly’ with the thrill of a lifetime, prior to leaving Washington he would say, Israel renounces all U.S. aid. We thank the American people for their generosity, but the time has come for Israel to be independent and act accordingly. We will now build 34,276,209 apartment units in East Jerusalem in what will be known as the Joseph Biden/Barak Obama Complex.
Israel should refuse to conduct negotiations with anyone who actively participates in anti semitism. Israels obligation should be to kill anti semites not to negotiate with them. Israel should show the world that it must be treated as a victor and not a victim by behaving like a victor and liquidating the anti semites. it is Israel who should be organizing terror in the west bank and gaza in order to give anti Semites their just desserts without apology. Israel should be proud to slay anti semites rather than apologetic for not meeting their demands.
Words, words, words and more words, all a collosal and useless waist because “security” will never trump “rights”. Israeli having conceded that it is an occupier of other peoples’ lands insteading of telling the truth has lost all legitimacy and has become loathsome to the world. Seems to be an irreversible course and destined for tragic outcomes.