• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CNN Piers Morgan Challenges Netanyahu

mbig

mbig

onomatopoeic
DP Veteran
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
10,350
Reaction score
4,989
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Piers Morgan- the welcome 3 digit IQ repalcement for Larry King - has a pretty good session with Netanyahu.
Asks him the question I would have. "why don't you be the big guy here".. Jump start the peace process.
Netanyahu answers fairly well, makes some good points, if not completely satisfyingly.
Also infers the challenge might be met at some point and then they'll have another interview.

Couldn't find full video but did find a clip with most of the part I have focused on.
[video]http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2011/03/18/piers.netanyahu.4.cnn.html[/video]

Full transcript:
Piers Morgan and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – Full Transcript – Piers Morgan - CNN.com Blogs
I excerpted below.
MORGAN: "....Doesn't part of you, Benjamin Netanyahu, look at yourself and think, I want to be the guy that makes this happen, not the guy that didn't make it happen?

NETANYAHU: Seven prime ministers have tried to get peace with the Palestinians since the peace process began in Oslo in 1993. Some of them made extraordinarily generous concessions and it didn't work because the Palestinians first under Arafat and now under Abu Mazen have not picked it up. They refuse to go the distance and actually recognize the Jewish state and make the compromises that are required from both sides.

The entire world is focusing on the compromises that are necessary from Israel's side. And I'm prepared to make a lot of those compromises for peace. But they're no focusing on the fact that the Palestinians refuse to make the necessary compromises that are required on their side for peace. And the simplest thing to do - here you're talking abouT moving the peace process forward - how do think - what do you think is the best way to arrive at a negotiated settlement?

MORGAN: Honestly? What do I think?

NETANYAHU: Yes.

MORGAN: When Sadat (ph) came to Jerusalem bearing concessions it worked. Why don't you go to Ramallah and be the big guy here? Why don't you go and take concessions, which are perhaps more than you're prepared to give right now and say, 'I'm calling the bluff here', not just as the Palestinians but as the international community.
Because I'll tell you what would happen. The international community is desperate for this to work. They would come with you. And yes, there would be, of course, problems. Yes, there would be more outrages. Everybody knows that. But in the end somebody has to be the big guy here and that could be you, couldn't it?

NETANYAHU: I'm pretty big.

(LAUGHTER)

MORGAN: Yes, you are. You are.

NETANYAHU: But, to get –

MORGAN: But doesn't history need people to be courageous?

NETANYAHU: Yes. Yes, it does. But peace requires two to tango. And what I'm - what I said - suggested the simplest thing is exactly what you're said. I said to Abu Mazen who was flying around in the world – the Palestinian president - I said, don't fly around the world. You want to make peace? Ramallah, where you said, is 10 minutes away from Jerusalem where we're sitting right now. I'm willing to come to you. You can come here. Let's sit down, shut the room, you know, basically
sit down until smoke comes out.

That's the way you make peace. That's how we made peace with Egypt. That's how we made peace with Jordan.

MORGAN: Why isn't it happening?

NETANYAHU: Because I think the Palestinian society is split into two – those who are openly calling for Israel's destruction like Hamas, and those who are not calling openly for Israel's destruction but refuse to confront those who do. And that's the Palestinian authority. I think they're timid, I think they're afraid to actually stand up to these killers. And I think that they're afraid, maybe for their own sake, for their own political hides (ph), sometimes for their own physical safety. And they don't take that necessary plunge."......"
Click to expand...
MORGAN: What is the big concession? What's the concession you're prepared to make to make this happen? Because you know if you don't make one, if you don't do something dramatic here, nothing's going to happen. You'll go down as a guy who was prime minister twice and it never happened. And I don't think that's a legacy you really want, is it?

Why would you want that legacy?

NETANYAHU: Well the legacy I want is that I hope secure the life the Jewish state and its future. We did have - we did act precipitously. We walked out of Gaza. We uprooted. Talk about concessions. We uprooted 10,000 Israelis out of Gaza, just eliminated the settlements that were supposed to be the obstacle to peace. We walked out, Iran walked in. We didn't get peace.
We walked out of Lebanon, every last inch. We walked out, Iran walkedin. From Lebanon they fired 6,000 rockets at us. This is a country the size of New Jersey. From Gaza, after we walked out, they fired 6,000 rockets at us. Now, they say, "Just walk out of the West Bank. Make the concession. Come on, do it again, a third time."..."
Click to expand...
MORGAN: Would you give up Jerusalem? Everyone tells me you would if it came to it.

NETANYAHU: I don't know what everybody is saying. I'll tell you what we say. We say that Jerusalem has to remain united under Israel. That's our position going into the negotiations. I know it's a very emotional issue for the Palestinians. So we've agreed - I've agreed – to have this issue brought up in the negotiations."..."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
thanks mbig, let us know if you find the full one
 
Interesting exchange. I will make sure to go listen to the full thing.
 
Last edited:
interesting read... thanks for finding it.

I liked his little 'Pope choosing' reference;)
NETANYAHU: ...You can come here. Let's sit down, shut the room, you know, basically sit down until smoke comes out.
Click to expand...
 
In my view the interview showed arrogance and was childlike. Saying to the PM of the nation come on guy. Could you imagine if a foreign reporter did that to Obama. Chiding a head of state the way he did I found insulting.
 
mbig said:
Piers Morgan- the welcome 3 digit IQ repalcement for Larry King - has a pretty good session with Netanyahu.
Asks him the question I would have. "why don't you be the big guy here".. Jump start the peace process.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't America jump start the peace process with al Qaeda?
 
uthman7c said:
Why doesn't America jump start the peace process with al Qaeda?
Click to expand...

Good question, maybe one of our 3 digit IQ reporters will ask Obama tonight.
 
washunut said:
In my view the interview showed arrogance and was childlike. Saying to the PM of the nation come on guy. Could you imagine if a foreign reporter did that to Obama. Chiding a head of state the way he did I found insulting.
Click to expand...

Well the condescension and rudeness was used by a foreign interviewer against Bush here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fze2J2Ve9is

He handled it quite well but was clearly pissed. No idea if Obama has been treated with as much disrespect yet.
 
mbig said:
YouTube - Pier Morgan #1, Benjamin Netanyahu 2011, CNN, Itamar massacre, Fogel, Iran

Other parts are on the right side of the link above.

Also note the transcript I posted above contains some errors. Most Notably it asks if Netanyahu was willing to give up "Jerusalem" instead of the actual/correct "East Jerusalem".
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link... That was an excellent interview that shows who are the civilized ones, and who are not. Netanyahu demonstrated the difference between a rational, non-violent society such as Israel, and a violent, irrational one which exists in the Palestinian territories.
 
Originally Posted by washunut
"In my view the interview showed arrogance and was childlike. Saying to the PM of the nation come on guy. Could you imagine if a foreign reporter did that to Obama. Chiding a head of state the way he did I found insulting.
Well the condescension and rudeness was used by a foreign interviewer against Bush here. "

BenK then responded:
"Well the condescension and rudeness was used by a foreign interviewer against Bush here.

YouTube - BANNED Pres. Bush Interview

He handled it quite well but was clearly pissed. No idea if Obama has been treated with as much disrespect yet. "


I agree Ben that Netanyahu handled it very well but with due respect I don't think Piers Morgan was not rude or disrespectful. He's doing what a journalist is supposed to do-challenge and ask questions. He did his job. Nothing he said was rude or disrespectful-it was meant to challenge and I commend him for his efforts.

I contend tt would have been rude had he interupted Netanyahu or insulted him. Likewise I contend it would have been disrespectful had he questioned Neanyahu's motives and suggested he was a liar. He never did that.

Netanyahu is a big boy. He deals with the Israeli media daily. You want rude, try them on for size, lol. Or his fellow Knesset members. They make Morgan look like Netanyahu's lover.

Morgan posed the question deliberately because it was posing back thhe summary of the criticism tdirected at Netanyahu and so gave Netanyahi a chance to directly address it. If anything I am sure Netanyahu appreciated the opportunity to be able to address it and that is precisely why he went on the show. Its precisely what he wanted to respond to.

Some like Netanyahu does not place himself somewhere unless he wants to be there.

Morgan may be a lot of things, show-boater, primma donna, big ego, but he is not stupid and he's not ignorant. He comes across a bit rude but its just the tone of his voice. He does come across a bit pompous but I think that is just his personality not intentional.

This notion a journalist can't challenge a politician with hard hitting questions or direct questions is for me unreasonable.

Netanyahu is not afraid to face the heat-neither are most genuine politicians. Its what they sign up for.Its part of the democratic process-beinh held accountable by the media.

Lol you should get a laugh and watch Israeli t.v. to see how rude Israeli media can be if you think Morgan was bad.

They are not exactly what we would call shy people.

Lol, its all subjective how we perceive these interactions but if I know one thing it is this, to be an Israeli politician means you have thick skin on your buttox from all the bite marks.
 
Former America's Got Talent judge asking a major world leader some pointed questions, very nice.
 
Mika-El said:
Originally Posted by washunut
"In my view the interview showed arrogance and was childlike. Saying to the PM of the nation come on guy. Could you imagine if a foreign reporter did that to Obama. Chiding a head of state the way he did I found insulting.
Well the condescension and rudeness was used by a foreign interviewer against Bush here. "

BenK then responded:
"Well the condescension and rudeness was used by a foreign interviewer against Bush here.

YouTube - BANNED Pres. Bush Interview

He handled it quite well but was clearly pissed. No idea if Obama has been treated with as much disrespect yet. "


I agree Ben that Netanyahu handled it very well but with due respect I don't think Piers Morgan was not rude or disrespectful. He's doing what a journalist is supposed to do-challenge and ask questions. He did his job. Nothing he said was rude or disrespectful-it was meant to challenge and I commend him for his efforts.

I contend tt would have been rude had he interupted Netanyahu or insulted him. Likewise I contend it would have been disrespectful had he questioned Neanyahu's motives and suggested he was a liar. He never did that.

Netanyahu is a big boy. He deals with the Israeli media daily. You want rude, try them on for size, lol. Or his fellow Knesset members. They make Morgan look like Netanyahu's lover.

Morgan posed the question deliberately because it was posing back thhe summary of the criticism tdirected at Netanyahu and so gave Netanyahi a chance to directly address it. If anything I am sure Netanyahu appreciated the opportunity to be able to address it and that is precisely why he went on the show. Its precisely what he wanted to respond to.

Some like Netanyahu does not place himself somewhere unless he wants to be there.

Morgan may be a lot of things, show-boater, primma donna, big ego, but he is not stupid and he's not ignorant. He comes across a bit rude but its just the tone of his voice. He does come across a bit pompous but I think that is just his personality not intentional.

This notion a journalist can't challenge a politician with hard hitting questions or direct questions is for me unreasonable.

Netanyahu is not afraid to face the heat-neither are most genuine politicians. Its what they sign up for.Its part of the democratic process-beinh held accountable by the media.

Lol you should get a laugh and watch Israeli t.v. to see how rude Israeli media can be if you think Morgan was bad.

They are not exactly what we would call shy people.

Lol, its all subjective how we perceive these interactions but if I know one thing it is this, to be an Israeli politician means you have thick skin on your buttox from all the bite marks.
Click to expand...



The leader of a nation should not be addressed by " hey guy". Could you imagine the outrage if an Israeli reporter said that to Obama.

Also the way the reporter talked about making sacrifices for peace was almost like saying to a kid why not share some candy.

We will disagree on this one, I felt that the discussion was disrespectful and thoughtless.
 
washunut said:
The leader of a nation should not be addressed by " hey guy". Could you imagine the outrage if an Israeli reporter said that to Obama.

Also the way the reporter talked about making sacrifices for peace was almost like saying to a kid why not share some candy.

We will disagree on this one, I felt that the discussion was disrespectful and thoughtless.
Click to expand...

Well you are making good points. I respect them. I am playing devil' advocate a bit. Maybe the "hey guy" reference and yes I heard the comment, maybe he meant it just to sound like he was paraphrasing Joe public speaking to Netanyahu, i.e., posing as an every day guy talking to a politician wanting the politician to talk like an ordinary guy for a second.-I think that's how he meant it-he was role playing the public-in real life he is very respectful. He certainly doesn't refer to him as Benji or shorty or fat head. I do get your point though. He could have phrased it or the candy reference better and Morgan is a highly intelligent man-maybe he's trying to dumb himself down for US t.v. Could that be? Americans tend to be more informal in speech then British. Maybe he is trying to sound more American folksy?

I do get a bit annoyed I must admit when I hear newscasters simply say Obama, not Mr. Obama. I know what you mean in the sense that we have moved into too familiar terms when addressing people and forget to use Sir, Mam, Mr. I don't see why its just the last name used.

While we are at it excuse all the typos. I was typing without my glasses as my eyes were tired.

I do agree with you that there is no excuse for not being polite when being hard hitting with the questions. Don't get me wrong. You still need to be both.

Let's face it though. The media reflects the morality of the day and you and I know its slipped so much in the last decade or so. I mean the trashy language, poor grammar and syntax that is published now no one got away with 10 years ago or so. Maybe you are noticing that now. Let's face it Fox t.v. is shlock. So is CNN. Its pop news. Compare both the BBC international news or watch our Canadian news. Far different. I prefer the BBC style myself. I think Canadian media is going the American route and its not really our style to be rude but more and more are trying. Our French press in Quebec can be very tough but its the cultural difference. French language allows more colourful expressions to mock people or play on words I think.

Then again some people tell me the British media is just as gutter trash as anyoe else's. I guess its true.

Not sure how much of that is the move away from writing well thought out and researched essays to these 10 second sound bites and a generation brought up texting each other monkey grunt noises.

People have lost or are losing the ability to write and read more than in short broken sentences.

I mean just look at my post.
 
Last edited:
Mika-El said:
I could think of a lot worse thigs then "hey guy"-I heard the comment, again with due respect because I appreciate your point its valid, but in my subjective opinion he said it without being rude or derogatory just sort of paraphrasing Joe public speaking to him-he was posing as an every day guy talking to a politician wanting the politician to talk like an ordinary guy for a second-I think that's how he meant it-he was role playing the public-in real life he is very respectful. He certainly doesn't refer to him as Benji or shorty or fat head.

I do get a bit annoyed I must admit when I hear newscasters simply say Obama, not Mr. Obama. I know what you mean in the sense that we have moved into too familiar terms when addressing people and forget to use Sir, Mam, Mr. I do appreciate that. You have a point there.

While we are at it excuse all the typos. I was typing without my glasses as my eyes were tired.

Well I do agree with you that there is no excuse for not being polite when being hard hitting with the questions.

Let's face it though. The media reflects the morality of the day and you and I know its slipped so much in the last decade or so. I mean the trashy language, poor grammar and syntax that is published now no one got away with 10 years ago or so.

Not sure how much of that is the move away from writing to these 10 second sound bites and a generation brought up texting each other monkey grunt noises.
Click to expand...

I guess you are right I am a bit old fashioned. A lot of these folks are TV persnalities, not trained journalists which might explain some of their interviewing styles.
 
So, In whose court is the ball?
I think it is in Israel's court despite correctly Netanyahu pointing out:
Netanyahu from the OP said:
NETANYAHU: Because I think the Palestinian society is split into two – those who are openly calling for Israel's destruction like Hamas, and those who are not calling openly for Israel's destruction but refuse to confront those who do. And that's the Palestinian authority. I think they're timid, I think they're afraid to actually stand up to these killers. And I think that they're afraid, maybe for their own sake, for their own political hides (ph), sometimes for their own physical safety. And they don't take that necessary plunge."......"
Click to expand...
Which, as CJ 2.0, and others point out IS a problem.

Pan-Palestinian elections have been called.. finally... by the two Gov'ts of the Palestinians, though it's not all clear even a Unity govt represents the Palestinian populace.

Nevertheless, I would like to see Netanyahu make a peace offer of some kind, at least a Barak-2000 if not the excellent Ohlmert floater, which was basically a full swap for any occupied land, and contiguity.

I am not at all satisfied this Israeli govt wants peace/two states on anything but surrender terms.
Stlll in the state of mind of Piers Morgan that Israel/Netanyahu "should be the big guy here".
Until he does, I am of THIS State of mind, still:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/88036-netanyahu-has-rejected-one-u-s-package-too-many.html

A reasonable offer would flush out the Palestinians if, as CJ 2.0 contends, they don't want peace.
And until the last few years I would have agreed.
However, the 'Palestine Papers' revealed Abbas & co Were willing to give away the kitchen sink/so much it was embarrassing to them.
So an offer by Israel would be in order any time, IMO.
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
So, In whose court is the ball?
I think it is in Israel's court despite correctly Netanyahu pointing out:
Which, as CJ 2.0, and others point out IS a problem.

Pan-Palestinian elections have been called.. finally... by the two Gov'ts of the Palestinians, though it's not all clear even a Unity govt represents the Palestinian populace.

Nevertheless, I would like to see Netanyahu make a peace offer of some kind, at least a Barak-2000 if not the excellent Ohlmert floater, which was basically a full swap for any occupied land, and contiguity.

I am not at all satisfied this Israeli govt wants peace/two states on anything but surrender terms.
Stlll in the state of mind of Piers Morgan that Israel/Netanyahu "should be the big guy here".
Until he does, I am of THIS State of mind, still:
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/88036-netanyahu-has-rejected-one-u-s-package-too-many.html

A reasonable offer would flush out the Palestinians if, as CJ 2.0 contends, they don't want peace.
And until the last few years I would have agreed.
However, the 'Palestine Papers' revealed Abbas & co Were willing to give away the kitchen sink/so much it was embarrassing to them.
So an offer by Israel would be in order any time, IMO.
Click to expand...

Great post. I think the Palestinian governance doesn't represent the Palestinian people well enough. I think that Hamas are quite frankly disgraceful, their advocating of terrorism and violence combined with radical and extremist views, not to mention there massively distorted view on reality means they're simply unable to do anything worthwhile. I am a firm believer that religion and state should NEVER be intertwined. I think that the two should exist as separate entities. On the other hand, I think the PA have no spine. They're unable to do what NEEDS to be done in order to get what they require from the peace negotiations. Corruption among the government just makes the situation worse.

I also think that some aspects which you've pointed out should also be highlighted. So many reasonable opportunities have come across to the Israeli government which could have led to reasonable and lasting peace which they have turned down. I believe their interest in territorial expansion and maintaining regions which they control is more valuable to them than peace at this time; primarily since they are the massively superior side militarily speaking, and the Palestinians don't really pose a significant threat, while the rest of the Arab world is incredibly unlikely to intervene. They're relatively safe as it stands.

Before peace can take place mutual ground and mutual reconciliation MUST be established, and a realistic neutral partner (not the US or an Arab nation) should be there to mediate. As long as the peace process is between one powerful nation and one vastly inferior one, no LASTING peace can occur. This is all my opinion
 
JusticeForSome? said:
Great post. I think the Palestinian governance doesn't represent the Palestinian people well enough. I think that Hamas are quite frankly disgraceful, their advocating of terrorism and violence combined with radical and extremist views, not to mention there massively distorted view on reality means they're simply unable to do anything worthwhile. I am a firm believer that religion and state should NEVER be intertwined. I think that the two should exist as separate entities. On the other hand, I think the PA have no spine. They're unable to do what NEEDS to be done in order to get what they require from the peace negotiations. Corruption among the government just makes the situation worse.

I also think that some aspects which you've pointed out should also be highlighted. So many reasonable opportunities have come across to the Israeli government which could have led to reasonable and lasting peace which they have turned down. I believe their interest in territorial expansion and maintaining regions which they control is more valuable to them than peace at this time; primarily since they are the massively superior side militarily speaking, and the Palestinians don't really pose a significant threat, while the rest of the Arab world is incredibly unlikely to intervene. They're relatively safe as it stands.

Before peace can take place mutual ground and mutual reconciliation MUST be established, and a realistic neutral partner (not the US or an Arab nation) should be there to mediate. As long as the peace process is between one powerful nation and one vastly inferior one, no LASTING peace can occur. This is all my opinion
Click to expand...
Thanks.
I have posted on this issue previous to your arrival. I understand your frustration with current leaders.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/69730-make-peace-palestinians-divided.html
One of the main reasons I'm so pessimistic on peace any time soon.
Israel's leadership doesn't help IMO; but it's almost academic for now.
Some interesting New Poll results from the Palestinians on 'their' govts.
28% for Hamas
26% for Fatah
31% say Both are illegitimate.
Click to expand...
Pretty strange situation.

As I have also previously commented... but for Netanyahu could have been the best chance at peace with Obama seen as the most even-handed of American Presidents by the Arabs/Palestinians.
But things have gotten away now on both sides and it's tragic.
Netanyahu isn't going to give anyone anything.
Abbas has Hamas to his Right and the embarrassing Palestine Papers to live down.
And now Fayyed, the Best leader Palestine has Ever had, forced out by Both power-hungry Factions who fear his domestic and International popularity.

The situation is Awful.

Maybe Years from now we'll have a Livni-Fayyed deal.
One can dream.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom