Follow by Email

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

The New York Times and Saudi Gazette Publish Identical Op-Ed Calling for Hamas Participation in Israeli-Palestinian Talks

Just how radical has The New York Times grown?

Remarkably, The New York Times and the Saudi Gazette have published an identical op-ed under different titles, written by Ali Abunimah, calling for Hamas participation in the Palestinian-Israeli peace talks in Washington.

The New York Times op-ed, entitled "Hamas, the I.R.A. and Us", can be found at:

The Saudi Gazette op-ed, entitled "Why Mitchell’s past success is not repeating in Mideast", can be found at:

According to the op-ed:

"No serious analyst believes that peace can be made between Palestinians and Israelis without Hamas on board, any more than could have been the case in Northern Ireland without Sinn Fein and the I.R.A."

Iranian proxy Hamas, which was elected by a Palestinian population disgusted with Fatah corruption, has since terrorized Gazans, and its popularity has plunged. According to a June 2010 Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research poll:

"If new legislative elections are held today with the participation of all factions, 71% say they would participate in such elections. Of those who would participate, 45% say they would vote for Fateh and 26% say they would vote for Hamas, 12% would vote for all other third parties combined, and 18% are undecided. Vote for Fateh in the Gaza Strip reaches 49% and in the West Bank 42%. Vote for Hamas in the Gaza Strip reaches 32% and in the West Bank 22%."

Needless to say, the Hamas charter, inter alia, calls for the murder of all Jews (not just Israelis) and rejects in absolute terms a negotiated peace solution with Israel.

"No serious analyst believes that peace can be made between Palestinians and Israelis without Hamas"? I believe that peace cannot be achieved between Palestinians and Israeli if Hamas is a party to the talks.

I guess I'm just not a "serious analyst".


  1. Today Hamas responded directly to Ali Abunimah's wishful op-ed more effectively than any comment in the Times could: 4 Israeli civilians (two women--one pregnant) slaughtered in the West Bank. As is customary with Hamas (and terrorists in general), no words are necessary.

  2. Too bad a "serious analyst" wasn't in the car that killed four innocent civilians today. At the least, he/she should have been there to be an eyewitness to the carnage. I am heartsick over this, as I am over Gilad's fifth birthday in captivity.

  3. want to add something from JPost blog regarding the US State Dept's language about this "tragedy:"

    "That nitwit State Department spokesman PJ Crowley labeled the murders “a tragedy”. A tragedy? A tragedy, as in a hurricane, a flood, a fire, or a car accident? A tragedy? Not murder? He could not even use the word. Instead, he recognized that there were “actors in the region who [wanted to] to sabotage the process.” Don’t “actors” have names? We know which side committed this unspeakable brutality. Doesn’t he?"

    Nuf said.

  4. I am struck by the next sentence from Izabel Kershner's story in NYTimes:

    "The victims came from Beit Hagai, a small settlement in the hills south of Hebron, an area known for particularly militant settlers. Israeli forces were combing the area looking for suspects."

    She clearly hints that it is settlers fault, and, perhaps, they committed the murder themselves, being "particularly militant". Even "Israeli forces are looking for suspects in their area".

    Can NYTimes go lower than this?