Here is the latest New York Times idiotorial on the Middle East…this one talking about the breakdown of “peace talks”, such as they were, between Israel and Palestinian Arabs.
The idiotorial is in rust, my comments are in blue:
TheMiddle East, Time to Move On
By THE EDITORIAL BOARDAPRIL 14, 2014
Thepointless arguing over who brought Israeli-Palestinian peace talks tothe brink of collapse isin full swing.Great start. What\’s the difference who torpedoed the talks? HillaryClinton-speak in full bloom. The United States is still working to salvage the negotiations, butthere is scant sign of serious purpose. It is time for theadministration to lay down the principles it believes must undergirda two-state solution, should Israelis and Palestinians ever decide tomake peace. Then PresidentObama and Secretary of State JohnKerry should move on and devote their attention to other majorinternational challenges like Ukraine. Herewe agree, at least in principle: if there is no hope for peace atthis time, concentrate more on other areas of foreign policy. On the other hand, since this woefully incompetent administration hasbeen a disaster on virtually all of those areas over the last fiveyears, maybe it would be better to just spin wheels in the middleeast.
Amongthose principles should be: a Palestinianstate in the WestBank and Gazawith borders based on the 1967 lines; mutually agreed upon land swapsthat allow Israelto retain some settlements while compensating the Palestinians withland that is comparable in quantity and quality; Iagree with this only because, on a practical basis, any logicalsettlement would keep Israel a Jewish state and the Palestinian Arabterritories Arab. But never forget that the “borders” beingdiscussed here were between Israel and Egypt (Gaza) and Israeland Jordan (Judea/Samaria, also known as the west bank). PalestinianArabs never had control of any land, thus never had any borders. Ironically, whatever they have now was given to themnot by Egypt or Jordan, but by Israel.and agreement that Jerusalem will be the capital of the two states. WHY? Why should Israel hand any part of its capital city to PalestinianArabs? Because they demand it? If that\’s the criterion, I assumeIsrael has a few demands of its own.
Perhapsthe Obama administration\’s effort to broker a deal was doomed fromthe start. Perhaps? In 2009, the administration focused on getting Israel to haltsettlement building and ran into the obstinacy of Prime MinisterBenjaminNetanyahu and resistance from the Palestinian president, MahmoudAbbas, to entering peace talks. Herewe see the Times\’ true slant. Israel is obstinate, and those poreol\’ Palestinian Arabs are just resisting. I keep waiting for someoneto explain to me why Israelis should not have a perfect right to settle on thisnon-sovereign land, which never was controlled by PalestinianArabs in the first place. Would the Times like to answer that? Since then, members of Mr. Netanyahu\’s coalition government havetried to sabotage the talks. As TzipiLivni, Israel\’s chief negotiator, told the website Ynet, “Thereare people in the government who don\’t want peace.” She citedNaftali Bennett, the leader of the pro-settler party Jewish Home, andUri Ariel, the housing minister. Thereyou go. One activist and one cabinet minister object, therefore the entire government ison a sabotage mission. Could the Times\’ bias be clearer?
Mr.Obama made the right decision to give it a second try last summer,with Mr. Kerry bringing energy and determination to the negotiations.But, after nine months, it is apparent that the two sides are stillunwilling to move on the core issues of the borders of a Palestinianstate, the future of Jerusalem, the fate of Palestinian refugees andguarantees for Israel\’s security. Has The Times ever demanded that Palestinian Arabs renounce the hamas charter all ofthem live under (not just Gazans)? Or renounce abbas\’ statement thathe would never recognize a Jewish state? Or demand that PalestinianArab textbooks show Israel\’s existence in any form at all? Or thatabbas names parks, and plazas and sporting events after “successful”terrorist murderers? Evidently none of that counts. The process broke down last month when Israel failed to release agroup of Palestinian prisoners as promised and then announced 700 newhousing units for Jewish settlement in a part of Jerusalem thatPalestinians claim as the capital of a future state. Ahhh,that\’s why they broke down. Got it. Funny, though: you didn\’tmention that Israel had already complete three of the four rounds ofreleasing those prisoners, and stopped only when Palestinian Arabs,having gotten just about every tangible benefit promised to them,reneged on their part of the agreement. Evidently that doesn\’t counteither. Accordingto Mr.Kerry that was the “poof” moment when it all fell apart, andthe Palestinians responded by applying to join 15 internationalconventions and treaties. Anabsolute lie. Again: Israel had already released the majority ofthose prisoners. Why do you insult our intelligence this way? Or doyou assume that Times readers don\’t have any, or that they are asbiased against Israel as you are? Thatmove won\’t get them a state, but it is legal and they did not seekto join the International Criminal Court, a big fear of Israel\’s.
Inrecent days, Israel, which denounced the Palestinians for takingunilateral steps, took its own unilateral steps by announcing plansto deprive the financially strapped PalestinianAuthority of about $100 million in monthly tax revenues andretroactively legalizing a 250-acre outpost in the Gush Etzionsettlement, which the Israeli newspaper Haaretzsaid was the largest appropriation of West Bank land in years. Translation:Palestinian Arabs renege on the deal, Israel reacts to theirtreachery, and you equate the two. You\’re hopeless.
An Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is morally just and essential for the security of both peoples. To achieve one will require determined and courageous leaders and populations on both sides that demand an end to the occupation. Despite the commitment of the United States, there\’s very little hope of that now. There was never any hope of it. Not as long as Israel wants peace and Palestinian Arabs want Israel – a reality which, apparently, you cannot bring yourself to see, no matter how plain they make it for you.
Until Israel has an actual peace partner, the “peace talks” are DOA.
But it is not a total loss. At least it gives the New York Times an opportunity to bash Israel…which the self-haters among the paper\’s ownership and editorial board enthusiastically take advantage of every time.
