New York Times Editorial "The Mideast Peace Process: No Plan for Talks"

The New York Times in an editorial today entitled "The Mideast Peace Process: No Plan for Talks" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27fri1.html?ref=opinion):

"And while he basked in Congress’s standing ovations, Ethan Bronner reported in The Times that in Israel the trip was judged a diplomatic failure. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz said Mr. Netanyahu’s 'same old messages' proved the country 'deserves a different leader.'”

Yesterday's lead story in Haaretz entitled "Haaretz poll: Netanyahu's popularity soaring following Washington trip" (http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-poll-netanyahu-s-popularity-soaring-following-washington-trip-1.364068):

"It's doubtful that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his wildest, most optimistic dreams, would have dared to imagine when he set off for the United States last week that Israelis would respond to his six-day trip so enthusiastically: According to a new Haaretz poll, they are giving the visit high marks, considering it an overwhelming success."

Whatever one's view regarding President Obama's Mideast policy speech, it is again sad to see The New York Times editorial board make such a distorted declaration.

Moreover, the New York Times editorial ignores a new Smith Research poll, indicating that only 12% of Israeli Jews surveyed said Obama was more pro-Israel, while 40% said he was more pro-Palestinian (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=222451). Israelis obviously do not trust Obama.

How is Obama to overcome that distrust, thereby overcoming innate Israeli hostility to his proposals? Since becoming president, Obama has visited Egypt, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. He has refused to visit Israel. It is time for such a visit to Israel, if he is able.

Concerning the conduct of The New York Times, which also published today a second editorial entitled "The Mideast Peace Process: Washington Makes Things Worse" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/opinion/27fri2.html), telling us that "Washington needs to stop pandering for Jewish support" (New York Times description of the editorial on their home page), one need question their balance and motives, particularly given events in Yemen, Libya and Syria.

It never occurred to the editorial board of The New York Times that the U.S. Congress can appreciate, for example, that in 2010, Israel voted 91.8% of the time with the U.S. at the UN General Assembly (http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/162416.pdf), compared with 75.4% for Canada and 74.2% for the U.K. Only Palau, 96.5%, and Micronesia, 94.0%, were higher than Israel. In contrast, Egypt and Pakistan, which receive billions of dollars in annual aid from America, voted with the U.S. 31.4% and 21.3% of the time, respectively.

Could it be that The New York Times is pandering to Obama?