New York Times Editorial, "The Palestinians' Bid": Beyond Naive

The editorial board of The New York Times, in "The Palestinians' Bid" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/23/opinion/the-palestinians-bid-for-statehood.html?hp), has once again demonstrated that it is incapable of breaking with its tradition of lauding Obama, empathizing with Abbas, and excoriating Netanyahu:

"Mr. Obama had no choice but to stand by Israel, this country’s historic ally. And we agree that a negotiated deal is the only way to ensure the creation of a viable Palestinian state, guarantee Israel’s security and build a lasting peace.

. . . .

There is plenty of blame to go around. The main responsibility right now belongs to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel who refuses to make any serious compromises for peace.

. . . .

The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, who is understandably frustrated, has forced a process that holds high risks for him as well."

No mention by The New York Times that:

• Abbas refuses to allow Jews to live in a new Palestinian state.
• Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Abbas also refused Ehud Olmert’s 2008 peace offer, which, as recently described by the former Israeli prime minister in a New York Times guest op-ed (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/22/opinion/Olmert-peace-now-or-never.html), included:

• A “Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.”
• A shared Jerusalem, whereby “the Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital” and the city’s holy places “would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.”
• The absorption of Palestinian refugees by the new Palestinian state with Israel also absorbing “a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.”

Also no mention by The New York Times that when Netanyahu agreed to a 10-month moratorium of housing construction in the West Bank in 2009, as demanded by Obama, Abbas refused to enter into peace negotiations until one month prior to the expiration of the settlement freeze.

Although the New York Times editorial board still “doesn’t get it,” Abbas is not interested in a peace agreement. He does, however, seek to play to the Arab street and preserve his authoritarian rule. Elected to serve until January 2009, Abbas unilaterally extended his term for another year and continues in office even after the expiration of the new deadline for elections. Nevertheless, The New York Times faults only Netanyahu with an overriding concern for his political survival.

Naivete on the part of The New York Times? Sometimes one wonders whether their editorial board is primarily concerned with Obama's political survival, who in their eyes, can do no wrong.