The prose, which breaks a few records for redundant use of adjectives in supposedly pure news stories, is pretty straightforward. It gives you every reason to believe that an Israeli Zionist Nazi government is tearing up agreements. According to Reuters:
Israel's new ultranationalist foreign minister said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's right-leaning government would not be bound by U.S.-backed understandings on a Palestinian state reached in 2007....
"It has no validity," Lieberman, an ultranationalist, said in an inaugural speech at the Foreign Ministry...
A political source close to Netanyahu said the remarks reflected the position of the new leader, whose right-leaning government was sworn in Tuesday.
By now, it should be clear that we are dealing with right-leaning ultranationalists, certainly a very bad phenomenon, who apparently tear up agreements and "understandings," like certain ultranationalist right-leaning 1930s leaders.
BBC was equally positive:
Israel's new ultra-nationalist foreign minister has said it is not bound by a US-sponsored 2007 agreement to reach a peace deal with the Palestinians.,,
The Annapolis accords were seen as a last-ditch attempt by the previous US administration to realise what President George W Bush called his "vision" of peace involving a two-state solution.
You can bet on one thing, for the rest of his term as ultranationist Foreign minister in the right leaning government, ultranationalist Avigdor Lieberman is going to be stuck with the epithet "ultranationalist." He might as well add it on as a first name, and sign documents "U.A. Lieberman."
But I searched the Internet and my memory for a document called the "Annapolis Accords" which might be similar to, say, the "Oslo Accords." Mirabile dictu, I didn't find any such document, and neither will you. The BBC invented it, it seems. What I did find, was that during the Annapolis negotiations, Israel and the Palestinian Authority had failed to come to any agreement at all. The negotiations were supposed to have produced an agreement and a Palestinian state by the end of 2008. But the Palestinian Authority negotiators insisted on the right of return for Palestinian refugees, insisted that they wold never recognize Israel as a Jewish state, and refused to acknowledge any Israeli rights in the Old city of Jerusalem or any other part of East Jerusalem.
As the negotiations were deadlocked, Israel offered to sign an interim agreement that would lock in achievements of the negotiators, but the Palestinians refused to do so. So there are no "Annapolis Accords" and no agreement for the Israeli government to break. Here's the proof, from an Associated press story of August 31, 2008. According to the story, the Palestinians not only refused an interim agreement, but they also refused to confirm that there was any progress. "No progress" certainly means there is nothing agreed.
Palestinians reject partial peace accord offered by Israelis
August 31, 2008 at 4:24 PM EDT
JERUSALEM — Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rejected Israel's idea of an interim peace agreement at a Sunday summit, a Palestinian negotiator said, insisting on an all-or-nothing approach that virtually ruled out an accord by a January target date....
Because of Israel's complicated political system. Mr. Olmert could still find himself in office next year, even if he resigns this month as promised. His aides said Sunday he hoped the Palestinians would sign a document outlining any agreements reached with Israel before he leaves office.....
“We want an agreement to end the (Israeli) occupation and establish an independent Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” Mr. Erekat told The Associated Press. "President Abbas told Olmert that we will not be part of an interim or shelf agreement," he said. "Either we agree on all issues, or no agreement at all." ...
Olmert spokesman Mark Regev said “significant progress had been made in the talks,” but “there are still considerable gaps between the two sides.” He would not elaborate...
Mr. Erekat refused to confirm the private views of officials on both sides that some headway has been made on setting borders between Israel and a Palestinian state.
Officials in Mr. Olmert's office said Israel has proposed giving the Palestinians all of Gaza, 93 per cent of the West Bank along with Israeli land equivalent to 5.5 per cent of the West Bank, as well as a land corridor through Israel to link the two separate territories. The Palestinians have said that offer is unacceptable.
There is the truth, which BBC remodeled. There were never any "Annapolis Accords" and the Palestinians ruled out any such interim solution.
BBC has, however, invented a new fictional entity, "Annapolis Accords," and a new non-event: The ultranationalist Israelis tore up the "Annapolis Accords."
Comment at the BBC and to Reuters.
Note: All bolding and underlining for emphasis were added by me. The text is as shown in the originals. In keeping with our practice, all links to URLs of unfavorable Web sites are tagged "nofollow" - please do not give these BBC and Reuters articles needless publicity in search engines.
Original content is Copyright by the author 2009. Posted at ZioNation-Zionism and Israel Web Log, https://zionism-israel.com/log/archives/00000673.html where your intelligent and constructive comments are welcome. Disributed by ZNN list. Subscribe by sending a message to . Please forward by e-mail with this notice, cite this article and link to it. Other uses by permission only.
Replies: 4 Comments
Since the Annapolis final statement placed a dead-line for the implementation of the two-state solution, december 2008, clearly expired, it is invalid.
Since none of the six major goals highlighted in this final statement was ever achieved, the Performance Based peace-plan is clearly underperforming, if at all. Therefore the Annapolis statement becomes invalid.
What is valid is that Arab demands amount to Israeli suicide, self- Genocide and politicide. I cannot expect the BBC, a staunch supporter of Jewish suicide to change its ways. I can expect Jewish news and analysis outlets to try and stick to the facts, but they dont. They would rather be honored as the Jewish BBC than the Jewish Agency for news and Analysis
, Sunday, April 5th
AP covered Lieberman's speech much the same way. Here is what the article conveyed:
I learned that Abbas is the "moderate President" of the Palestinians, as the writer felt obligated to put it prior to both mentions of his name.
On the other hand, the Israeli, Lieberman, is the "hard-line foreign minister" who "opposes peace" as "head of the ultranationalist Yisrael Beitenu" and is "widely seen as racist."
So the man with bloody hands, who financed the slaughter of the Israeli athletes at Munich and was a top aide to Arafat throughout his many murderous campaigns, who encourages genocidal incitement against Jews in his state-run media and schools, who names streets after suicide bombers and honors terrorists murderers of little Jewish children, who wrote his PHd thesis denying the Holocaust and claiming that the Jews were working with the Nazis in order to get sympathy for their schemes in the Middle East, is a "moderate."
And the rough-around-the-edges Russian immigrant, recently selected as Foreign Minister of Israel, who believes that if Arabs want to chant "death of the Jews" and "Khybar, Khybar ya Yahood," --and if they truly hate Israel so much that they refuse to show loyalty to their country-- perhaps they don't deserve to be Israeli citizens, he is the "racist" and "ultranationalist" who "opposes peace" even though he has never killed anyone and doesn't call for any nation to be wiped off the face of the earth.
Personally, I don't like the language Lieberman used regarding Israeli Arabs during the campaign. However, given the daily genocidal hatred that emerges from Arab imams, leaders, academics and media, the press clearly has one standard for the Arabs and one for the Jews when it comes to determining who is a "racist" or "ultranationalist."
4infidels, Thursday, April 2nd
Strangely, "Ha'aretz" has this headline in its Hebrew Web edition:
???"? ???? ???????: ???????? ?????
which in English is "USA replies to Lieberman: Annapolis is valid" (http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasite/spages/1075511.html). However, Annapolis is not mentioned in the words attributed by the article to sources close to Obama.
Thanks, Ami, for reminding us to check the sources.
Misha Shauli, Wednesday, April 1st
The other day (I believe it was yesterday) a CBC "reporter" (Armstrong?) kept referring to a certain Israeli elected official as "racist." Interestingly, of course, in the world of the CBC, NOT ONCE have I EVER heard the term "racist" used in conjunction with HAMAS. NOT ONCE. Apparently, it is perfectly acceptable for the CBC to label an Israeli as "racist" -- but for an Islamist to call for genocide of Jews, for an Islamist to call for the complete obliteration of the State of Israel, for an Islamist to characterize Israelis as "apes and pigs", for an Islamist to call for the murder of all Israeli civilians -- well, of course, heaven forfend that such diatribes be labelled "racist!" Oh, no! In the CBC world only Israelis can be racists!
, Wednesday, April 1st
Constructive comments, including corrections, are welcome. Do not use this space for spam, publishing articles, self promotion, racism, anti-Zionist propaganda or character defamation. Inappropriate comments will be deleted. See our Comment policy for details. By posting here, you agree to the Comment policy.