T. Belman. Bennett wasn’t defensive and made our case. But I have to wonder why he should subject himself to this biased and aggressive interregation. The host gets the opportunity to keep repeating his accusations and to underscore key words like occupation, apartied, dead children and so on. I don’t see the upside to doing such interviews.
His time would be better spent with someone whose purpose isn’t to accuse but to learn.
The first Palestinian State in Gaza a disaster; won’t create another one
@ Ted Belman:
Yes I agree that nothing s gained by “such” interviews. BUT….I don’t agree with your other points. Bennett was far too “polite”…All he had to do was say…”slow down..SLOW DOWN..don’t drown me in accusations before you get the answers”. “THAT” would have disconcerted the “inquisitor”. Also he could have asked… “do you want me to answer your questions or are you just showing off for your anti
-Israel listeners” This would have been the way to deal with such is he.
Henry Morgan, the American caustic comedian who became a regular on question panels, sometimes did this very effectively, when he was bored… I’ve seen him shutting down people like Johnny Carson and Merv.Griffin. I saw him blast at Griffin, for “dragging me out of bed because you had nobody for tonight and I should have had my head examined.. i have to sit here and listen to all this nonsensical gibberish” (he meant Charo -the 5th wife of Xavier Cugat)… He walked out, and Griffin was genuinely taken aback..
I don’t expect Bennett to do that, but he COULD have put the guy in his place and answered the points that Sebastien made. He had the openings, but as I said he allowed himself to be “rushed off his feet”. He has the ability to steer the answers to his points and not allow himself to be treated like a kid who’d just graduated from High School.
Much better interview with a hostile BBC interviewer from 2014. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd24Yw5EhrM
@ Ted Belman:
I agree with your last point. I think an interview with NIgel Farrar would be productive.
I disagree with both of you not that i think Bennett coverED all the issues but because I think that there was such an onrush of accusations, one couldn’t possible answer them all. In adddition, each required time to give a meaningful answer and I am sure that the inquisitor wouldn’t have allowed him the time.
So the next thing is that we might ask should Bennett have become more aggressive and taken issue with the hosts tone and aggression and questions. Yes or no.
So my position is that nothing is to be gained by participating in such “interviews.”
@ Sebastien Zorn:
Yes I agree with you… in fact I was going to post the same things until I saw yours.
A few things I’d like to add…The makeup he had was very bad; made him loo like Dracula almost….. a far bigger mouth than he has. Also, the “inquisitor” was hammering away at “settlements are illegal according to International law”…etc and Bennett didn’t correct THAT ether…
I was waiting for him to say..”whoa…back up there….hold your horses..” that mamzer should have been told that the “settlements” he was jabbering about were actually modern cities with populations of up to 50,000 -not tiny villages with 100 people… …..
,
But he never did. I thought it a poor interview considering it was Bennett. He allowed himself to be rushed off his feet….
Bennett failed to mention San Remo U.N. Resolution 80 and contradict the interviewer’s false assertion that asserting sovereignty in Area C violates international law. He also failed to mention that international law assigns blame to the terrorists who use civilians as human shields. Also, he also failed to challenge the interviewer’s blood-libelous assertion that Israeli forces killed 2,000 civilians I thought it was a weak performance. I would have turned the tables and asked why the interviewer doesn’t value Jewish lives. I prefer Bennett’s politics but he really doesn’t have Bibi’s skill in foreign affairs, unfortunately.