Ridiculed by The Washington Post, Obama Rescued by The New York Times

Who would believe? Labeled "Pravda on the Potomac" and long considered an exemplar of liberalism, The Washington Post in its Thursday editorial, "Tough on Israel", took Obama to task for his "peculiar" style of diplomacy: coddling tyrannies while beating up on Israel:

"ONE OF THE MORE striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank. To a less visible extent, the two governments also have differed over policy toward Iran."

The Washington Post noted that Obama's "missteps" had caused Israelis to rally behind Netanyahu and that in order to advance peace in the Middle East, Obama

"must be tough on more than one country."

The Obama administration was much distressed by this rebuke, and lo and behold, wonder of wonders, the next day, Friday, The New York Times attempted to shore up Obama's flagging foreign policy ratings with its own editorial, "The Settlements Issue".

"[W]e commend President Obama for demanding that Israel halt all new construction. The controversy must not obscure Mr. Obama’s real goal: nudging Israel and the Palestinians into serious peace negotiations. . . . The Americans have decided that a freeze is needed to show Palestinians and other Arabs that Israel’s conservative government is serious about peace."

Poppycock. Prior Israeli governments, those of Barak and Olmert, offered the return of the territories, but neither Arafat nor Abbas was willing, in return, to concede Israel's right to exist.

Even more absurd, Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal stated on Friday at a State Department press conference that Saudi Arabia rejects any gestures from Israel as part of a step-by-step peace process.

In other words, Obama is demanding unilateral concessions from Israel - exactly as The Washington Post informs us.

As an aside, it is worth observing that The New York Times' editorial was rushed out before its factual content could be properly verified. According to The Times, Obama and Mitchell:

"have asked Arab states — notably Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Syria — to signal the beginning of an acceptance by allowing Israel to fly commercial planes through Arab airspace or open government commercial offices in their capitals."

Israel has an embassy in Egypt, and El Al has regularly scheduled flights to Cairo.