The Israel/Hamas War was still raging in the Gaza Strip on Friday with no end in sight, especially since Hamas was still refusing to release the hostages. But on MSNBC, host Andrea Mitchell and chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel were clutching their pearls over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejecting the idea of a two-state solution with the Palestinians while their Hamas government was still in power. Engel engaged in revisionist history to blame the collapse in peace talks on the PM instead of Palestinians, and Mitchell was schooled on the situation by a Democratic senator.
“Netanyahu saying that he definitely will not consider a path towards a Palestinian state, which as you know has been U.S. and E.U., U.N. policy for decades and decades,” Mitchell whined. “And this is now the crux of a Saudi and Arab and U.S. plan for a post-Gaza reconstruction, governance, and eventual statehood.”
Engel lamented it wasn’t likely Netanyahu would be up for “softening in his position or his government” anytime soon. “This is his position. This is the core of his identity. And it is what he is using to hold his coalition together,” he chided.
Recalling his reporting in the early 2000s, Engel delved into some revisionist history to shift blame from Palestinians to Netanyahu for the breakdown in peace talks featuring a two-state solution:
He came into power at the end of the peace process. I was there. I was covering Israel and the peace process, at the time. When Ariel Sharon did a very famous march on top of what the Israelis call the Temple Mount, what the Palestinians call the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound or noble sanctuary. And it was the end of the peace process and that ushered in a period of Sharon and then ultimately Netanyahu. Since then, there has been no peace process, no peace process that would ever lead to a Palestinian state. And that has been Netanyahu’s political space.
“Netanyahu and his coalition simply do not agree to that and believe that it would be a violation of every – of all of their principles and Israeli sovereignty,” he huffed, suggesting Israel was to blame for the October 7 terrorist attack Hamas carried out against Israeli civilians.
But Engel was hiding the truth. Former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon left office in 2006 and Netanyahu didn’t begin his first term until 2009. That 2006 date is important because that’s when the Palestinians voted to reject peace and a two-state solution.
According to the National Counterterrorism Center, “[Hamas] in early 2006 won legislative elections in the Palestinian territories, ending the secular Fatah party’s hold on the Palestinian Authority and challenging Fatah’s leadership of the Palestinian nationalist movement.”
Later in the show, Mitchell spoke with Maryland Democratic Senator Ben Cardin and was looking for him to join in their bashing of Netanyahu. “What do you think about the Netanyahu posture against an eventual Palestinian state in response to a Saudi, U.S., Arab group proposal to rebuild Gaza as long as -- and help secure it, regovern it or build up a Palestinian governance as long as there's at least a pathway for the Palestinians?” she pressed him.
But Cardin didn’t bite. He explained that Israel had taken the sensible position of refusing to negotiate for peace with genocidal terrorists and would be amenable to talks only after the threat was removed.
“Israel right now is focused on the war and Hamas. But when that war ends, when Hamas is no longer a threat to Israel or the Palestinians, then Israel is going to be focused on normalization in the region,” he schooled her. “They want a normal relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the kingdom also would like to see that type of normalization agreements reached.”
He even seemed to suggest he sympathized with Netanyahu:
So, I recognize with the Prime Minister saying today when the war is over, when the threat is eliminated from Hamas, we expect there will be a different attitude, particularly in the desire to get normalization with countries in the region.
Mitchell didn’t seem to like that as she decried Israel’s “right-wing coalition” government.
The transcript is below. Click "expand" to read:
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Reports
January 19, 2024
12:15:36 p.m. Eastern(…)
ANDREA MITCHELL: And Richard, let me just take you back to Israel and Gaza, which you’ve been covering so intensively. Netanyahu saying that he definitely will not consider a path towards a Palestinian state, which as you know has been U.S. and E.U., U.N. policy for decades and decades. And this is now the crux of a Saudi and Arab and U.S. plan for a post-Gaza reconstruction, governance, and eventual statehood. Do you think this is final? Or is there some softening in the – not in his coalition but within the government that the U.S. can exploit?
RICHARD ENGEL: I don't think there's a softening in his position or his government. This is his position. This is the core of his identity. And it is what he is using to hold his coalition together. Since Netanyahu has been in power -- in and out of power, but a dominant force in Israeli politics for nearly two decades, he has been opposed to a Palestinian state. He talked proudly about opposing a Palestinian state. He talked recently about how proud he was to stop it.
He came into power at the end of the peace process. I was there. I was covering Israel and the peace process, at the time. When Ariel Sharon did a very famous march on top of what the Israelis call the Temple Mount, what the Palestinians call the Al-Aqsa Mosque compound or noble sanctuary. And it was the end of the peace process and that ushered in a period of Sharon and then ultimately Netanyahu.
Since then, there has been no peace process, no peace process that would ever lead to a Palestinian state. And that has been Netanyahu’s political space. That he was able to provide Israelis with security, with economic prosperity and no peace process that would lead to a Palestinian state. That exploded on October 7. And now the administration is trying to say, “Okay, that approach that you’ve had for nearly two decades didn't work. The Palestinians -- there was so much anger and hate that burst into the massacre that we saw, we have to go back to an original plan that will have a statehood at the end of it.”
Netanyahu and his coalition simply do not agree to that and believe that it would be a violation of every – of all of their principles and Israeli sovereignty.
MITCHELL: The U.S. hope is that Netanyahu and others in Israel are going to want that Saudi deal so badly that they might soften.
(…)
12:43:05 p.m. Eastern
MITCHELL: What do you think about the Netanyahu posture against an eventual Palestinian state in response to a Saudi, U.S., Arab group proposal to rebuild Gaza as long as -- and help secure it, regovern it or build up a Palestinian governance as long as there's at least a pathway for the Palestinians?
SEN. BEN CARDIN (D-MD): So Andrea, let me put this in perspective. I did meet with Secretary Blinken yesterday. I have had conversations with many of the players in the Middle East. Israel right now is focused on the war and Hamas. But when that war ends, when Hamas is no longer a threat to Israel or the Palestinians, then Israel is going to be focused on normalization in the region. They want a normal relationship with the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the kingdom also would like to see that type of normalization agreements reached.
Two things must happen in order for that to happen. First, Hamas must be eliminated as a threat to the Palestinians and Israelis. And secondly, there must be a clear path for a Palestinian state and the state of Israel living side by side in peace, recognizing each other's rights and without fear of any security concerns.
So, once the Hamas threat is eliminated, the attitude and I think the language is going to change pretty dramatically. There is no other option for peace in the region than two states living side by side in peace.
So, I recognize with the Prime Minister saying today when the war is over, when the threat is eliminated from Hamas, we expect there will be a different attitude, particularly in the desire to get normalization with countries in the region.
(…)
