The New York Times Would "Prod" Israel

In an editorial of today's date entitled "Squandering the Moment", The New York Times takes the position that if the Middle East’s major players continue to refuse to do what is needed to move the peace process forward, the White House may have to place its own deal on the table. A thinly veiled threat from the Obama administration to you-know-who via a courier? My response:

"President Obama needs to prod Mr. Netanyahu toward bolder action by making a direct — and better — case to a skeptical Israeli public on why a settlements freeze and reviving peace talks is in its interest."

The New York Times' editorial staff wears its ignorance on its sleeve: In recent years two Israeli prime ministers, Barak and Olmert, have offered to evacuate the West Bank in exchange for peace, but both offers were refused. There is good reason for Israeli skepticism.

"Prod" Netanyahu? As one might "prod" cattle? This is indeed the obtuse posture of the Obama administration that has rallied Israeli centrists behind Netanyahu and eliminated public support for the Israeli left.

Recently, following a Washington Post editorial criticizing Obama for "getting tough" only with Israel, The New York Times the next day rallied to the support of Obama with its own idolizing editorial, and not long afterwards was rewarded with an op-ed written by Obama or someone on his behalf.

It can only be hoped that the blatant warning found in today's editorial, in furtherance of a bankrupt policy of undermining the only true friend of the U.S. in the Middle East, is not a conveniently disguised message from a hostile West Wing.

Peculiar how it never occurs to certain people that negotiations cannot proceed without acceptance - not "greater acceptance" as stipulated by this editorial - of Israel's right to exist. Given the foolhardy optimism exhibited by the Obama administration vis-a-vis negotiations with Iran, this should come as no surprise.