Obama versus Israel and New York Times versus Israel

A.P. photo/ Charles Dharapak

Serious peace negotiations are in the “interests” of all parties concerned.  However, the New York Times is skeptical of Israeli PM Netanyahu’s dedication to making peace.  He is not giving the Obama administration “something to work with” “to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem.  “Mr. Obama was right to demand that Mr. Netanyahu repair the damage.” 

The Palestinian Arabs “are justifiably worried” that Israeli housing projects in areas they want for a new state “nibble away” at the land available for it.  “The disputes with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks.”  “Jerusalem’s future must be decided in negotiations.  Negotiations must soon become direct, or the problems won’t be resolved.

The editors are pleased that Obama challenged Netanyahu, forcing public debate on the issues.  “He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully.”  (3/27.)

Here is another way to look at this.  What public debate on the issues?  The U.S. never has justified Palestinian Arab statehood, its demands that Israel reduce security measures while Arabs continue attempting terrorism, is one-sided demands of Israel, its demands that Israel release convicted terrorists, nor any linkage between the Arab-Israel conflict and Iran’s bid for regional hegemony via nuclear weapons. 

What “peace” can emerge from negotiations with the Arabs whose goal is not peace but conquest of non-Muslims?  Claiming that negotiations are in the “interests” of all parties sounds nice, but what does it mean when one side doesn’t want peace?  Why is the Times skeptical of Israel’s desire for peace, when the Palestinian Arabs are inciting to hatred and violence and refuse to negotiate?

Why should Israel repair damage deliberately inflicted by the Obama administration in manufacturing the crisis? 

Why are the Arabs “justifiably worried” that Israeli housing projects will reduce the land available for their desired state, and the Times is not “justifiably worried” that Arab construction will reduce the land available for the Jewish state?

If Obama looks weak, he should have acted in good faith and not made excessive demands upon Israel and only upon Israel.  His one-sided demands on Israel helped the Arabs hold out for U.S. pressure to get more Israeli concessions for them without their having to negotiate.  Did this surprise Obama?

What do the editors mean, “Palestinians and Arab leaders?”  Are the Palestinian leaders not Arabs?”  The editors try hard to make them seem a different nationality.

Israel does not have to negotiate Jerusalem.  It annexed Jerusalem.

Direct negotiations would be fairer, because the U.S. would not be weighing in on the Arab side, and because the Arabs would have to stop pretending the Israelis are beneath them.

After demanding a lot of Israel, the editors put out a pro forma line that Obama must press the Arabs just as forcefully.   But the editors make no suggestions.  Do they mean it?  They would be embarrassed at what should be asked of the Arabs.  17 years after the Oslo Accords at which the Arabs pledged to eradicate terrorism, they have not.  Neither have they ceased their propaganda of bigotry and of imperialism.  To bring out those failings would show which side is the offender and how absurd it is to expect peace from totalitarian fanatics.  That the Times will not do.

(For prior article on Obama anti-Zionism, click here  )