The New York Times Continues to Function as Obama's Attack Dog

On Wednesday Jackson Diehl of the Washington Post wrote an opinion piece, entitled "Obama and Netanyahu: pointless poison", which described the results of Obama's confrontation with Netanyahu in straightforward, uncomplimentary terms:

"Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has adopted Obama’s original demand as his own: He’s saying he won’t begin even the indirect, 'proximity' talks he previously agreed to until Israel accepts the Clinton terms on Jerusalem. How could he do otherwise? The Palestinian leader cannot be less pro-Palestinian than the White House. But Abbas cannot climb down from his position so easily -- which means that, for the second time in a year, the Middle East peace process has been stalled by a U.S.-engineered deadlock.

. . . .

Finally, Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length.

. . . .

U.S. pressure on Netanyahu will be needed if the peace process ever reaches the point where the genuinely contentious issues, like Palestinian refugees or the exact territorial tradeoffs, are on the table. But instead of waiting for that moment and pushing Netanyahu on a point where he might be vulnerable to domestic challenge, Obama picked a fight over something that virtually all Israelis agree on, and before serious discussions have even begun.

. . . .

A new administration can be excused for making such a mistake in the treacherous and complex theater of Middle East diplomacy. That’s why Obama was given a pass by many when he made exactly the same mistake last year. The second time around, the president doesn’t look naive. He appears ideological -- and vindictive."

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

As might be expected, The New York Times today came to the rescue of Obama in an editorial entitled "Mr. Obama and Israel":

"After taking office last year, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel privately told many Americans and Europeans that he was committed to and capable of peacemaking, despite the hard-line positions that he had used to get elected for a second time. Trust me, he told them. We were skeptical when we first heard that, and we’re even more skeptical now.

All this week, the Obama administration had hoped Mr. Netanyahu would give it something to work with, a way to resolve the poisonous contretemps over Jerusalem and to finally restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. It would have been a relief if they had succeeded. Serious negotiations on a two-state solution are in all their interests. And the challenges the United States and Israel face — especially Iran’s nuclear program — are too great for the leaders not to have a close working relationship.

. . . .

President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel’s response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability.

Mr. Netanyahu’s government provoked the controversy two weeks ago when it disclosed plans for 1,600 new housing units in an ultra-orthodox neighborhood in East Jerusalem just as Vice President Joseph Biden Jr. was on a fence-mending visit and Israeli-Palestinian “proximity talks” were to begin.

. . . .

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 (in which Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured."

http://www.nytimes.com//2010/03/27/opinion/27sat1.html

The Times editorial board does not bother to observe:

- that Netanyahu is ready to engage in immediate, face-to-face negotiations with the Palestinians;

- that Netanyahu supports a two-state solution;

- that Netanyahu declared a moratorium on West Bank construction;

- that Obama has backed away from every deadline he has set for Iran, and this indecisiveness has nothing whatsoever to do with Israel;

- that dozens of Middle East wars, past and present, have not involved Israel in any way and have claimed an exponentially larger number of lives than all of the combined wars involving Israel;

- that it was the Jerusalem municipal council, not Netanyahu's government, which disclosed plans for the 1,600 housing units, and Netanyahu apologized both privately and publicly to Biden for the announcement.

The Times editorial board would have us believe that Israel is making Obama appear weak and that Obama's appeasement of Iran, Syria, North Korea, Burma and China has nothing whatsoever to do with this perception. Almost as an afterthought, the Times editorial board notes that Obama "must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully." What does this mean? That while Obama beats up on an ally and demands concessions, he should also consider trying to convince the Palestinians to sit at the same table with the Israelis in order to talk peace?

But if all this isn't enough, examine the map that accompanies the Times editorial, which identifies Hadassah Hospital on Mount Scopus, which was built before the establishment of the State of Israel and falls within Israel's "Green Line" (1949 armistice line) borders, as an "Israeli settlement":

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/03/23/world/middleeast/jerusalem-map.html

This time, The New York Times has truly outdone itself.