But what is missing from Collins's column? You want empty braggadocio? What about Obama's recent claim regarding his White House achievements, which was "conveniently" edited out of “60 Minutes” (see: http://ology.com/politics/ego-watch-cbs-refuses-air-obamas-claim-be-fourth-best-president-history/12202011):
“As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first two years against any president — with the possible exceptions of Johnson, F.D.R., and Lincoln — just in terms of what we’ve gotten done in modern history."
Apparently, Obama, surrounded by flunkeys, has grown delusional. This is beyond a narcissistic personality disorder. Where is Jon Stewart when we need him?
Jeff:
ReplyDeleteRon Dermer, senior advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, sent following letter to the editorial board of the New York Times. Unfortunatley, it is too long to be accepted here. I know you will appreciate it. How can I share it? Here is, at least, the first portion:
I received your email requesting that Prime Minister Netanyahu submit an
op-ed to the *New York Times.* Unfortunately, we must respectfully decline.
On matters relating to Israel, the op-ed page of the "paper of record" has
failed to heed the late Senator Moynihan's admonition that everyone is
entitled to their own opinion but that no one is entitled to their own
facts.
A case in point was your decision last May to publish the following bit of
historical revision by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas:
It is important to note that the last time the question of Palestinian
statehood took center stage at the General Assembly, the question posed to
the international community was whether our homeland should be partitioned
into two states. In November 1947, the General Assembly made its
recommendation and answered in the affirmative. Shortly thereafter, Zionist
forces expelled Palestinian Arabs to ensure a decisive Jewish majority in
the future state of Israel, and Arab armies intervened. War and further
expulsions ensued.
This paragraph effectively turns on its head an event within living memory
in which the Palestinians rejected the UN partition plan accepted by the
Jews and then joined five Arab states in launching a war to annihilate the
embryonic Jewish state. It should not have made it past the most
rudimentary fact-checking.
The opinions of some of your regular columnists regarding Israel are well
known. They consistently distort the positions of our government and ignore
the steps it has taken to advance peace. They cavalierly defame our country
by suggesting that marginal phenomena condemned by Prime Minister Netanyahu
and virtually every Israeli official somehow reflects government policy or
Israeli society as a whole. Worse, one
columnisteven
stooped to suggesting that the strong expressions of support for Prime
Minister Netanyahu during his speech this year to Congress was "bought and
paid for by the Israel lobby" rather than a reflection of the broad support
for Israel among the American people.
continued, part II:
ReplyDeleteYet instead of trying to balance these views with a different opinion, it
would seem as if the surest way to get an op-ed published in the *New York
Times* these days, no matter how obscure the writer or the viewpoint, is to
attack Israel.
Even so, the recent piece on
"Pinkwashing, "in
which Israel is vilified for having the temerity to champion its
record
on gay-rights, set a new bar that will be hard for you to lower in the
future.
Not to be accused of cherry-picking to prove a point, I discovered that
during the last three months (September through November) you published 20
op-eds about Israel in the *New York Times* and *International Herald
Tribune. * After dividing the op-eds into two categories, "positive" and
"negative," with "negative" meaning an attack against the State of Israel
or the policies of its democratically elected government, I found that 19
out of 20 columns were "negative."
The only "positive" piece was penned by Richard Goldstone (of the infamous
Goldstone Report), in which he defended Israel against the slanderous charge
of Apartheid
.
Yet your decision to publish that op-ed came a few months after your paper
reportedly rejected Goldstone's previous submission. In that earlier piece,
which was ultimately published in the *Washington
Post,*the
man who was quoted the world over for alleging that Israel had
committed war crimes in Gaza, fundamentally changed his position. According
to the *New York Times* op-ed page, that was apparently news unfit to print.
Your refusal to publish "positive" pieces about Israel apparently does not
stem from a shortage of supply. It was brought to my attention that the
Majority Leader and Minority Whip of the U.S. House of Representatives
jointly submitted an op-ed to your paper in September opposing the
Palestinian action at the United Nations and supporting the call of both
Israel and the Obama administration for direct negotiations without
preconditions. In an age of intense partisanship, one would have thought
that strong bipartisan support for Israel on such a timely issue would have
made your cut.
So with all due respect to your prestigious paper, you will forgive us for
declining your offer. We wouldn't want to be seen as "Bibiwashing" the
op-ed page of the *New York Times.*
*Do you agree with Bibi's decision? Let us know in the comment section
below.*