New York Times Editorial, "The Vatican and the Palestinians": Wearing Its Hatred of Israel on Its Sleeve

"I think this is something that is going to happen. We have to look at it realistically: in the end there will be a Palestinian state. I see things firstly from our own perspective. I don't think we should be ruling over another people and running its life. I don't think we have the strength for that. It is too heavy a burden on our people, and it gives rise to serious moral problems and serious economic problems."

- Ariel Sharon, Haaretz interview, April 2003

In an editorial entitled "The Vatican and the Palestinians," The New York Times comments on a treaty signed on Wednesday by the Vatican, which officially recognizes the state of Palestine. The Times begins by declaring:

"The practical effect of the Vatican’s decision to sign a treaty recognizing the state of Palestine is debatable, but it is a symbolic victory for Palestinians who are struggling to keep alive their dream of a Palestinian state, which has been thwarted by the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."

The "dream of a Palestinian state . . . has been thwarted by the Israeli government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu"? Well, I also believe in the establishment of a Palestinian state, which I hope will live in peace and prosperity beside Israel. However, I am also cognizant of the covenant of Hamas, the governing body of Gaza, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis. I have also not forgotten the some four thousand missiles fired from Gaza at Israeli towns and cities last summer.

And then there is the fact that Palestinian Authority President Abbas refused Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 peace offer, providing the Palestinians with an independent state along the 1967 lines together with agreed upon land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem. One year later, after Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze "to restart peace talks" at the request of Obama, Abbas delayed entering negotiations until the last moment and then walked away from the discussions.

Moreover, although the Times is enchanted by the Vatican's recognition of a Palestinian state, nowhere is there mention by the Times that Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Why should there be a Palestinian state, but not a Jewish state?

The dream of a Palestinian state is being thwarted by Netanyahu and not by the Palestinians? I don't think so.

The Times editorial observes:

"On the eve of the March 17 elections, Mr. Netanyahu said flat out that no Palestinian state would be established during his tenure, and while he later softened his position, the possibility of any serious negotiating initiative seems dead."

True. But it was Menachem Begin from the Likud who evacuated Sinai and signed a peace treaty with Egypt. And it was Ariel Sharon, known for much of his political life - mostly in the Likud - as a hardliner, who stated his support for a Palestinian state and evacuated Gaza.

Yes, Netanyahu is a political animal, wanted to be reelected in March, and is more than capable of contradicting himself. But if and when the time comes and the Palestinians are willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state with the 1967 lines (taking land swaps into account), a Palestinian state will indeed arise.

Meanwhile, however, missiles fired at Israeli civilians and attack tunnels leading into Israeli agricultural communities on the border with Gaza don't help.

Yes, the Times wears its hatred for Israel on its sleeve.

Thomas Friedman, "The Man on the Wall": Offensive

It is no accident that until now I have avoided reference in this blog to Ariel Sharon's passing. For me, it involves many conflicting emotions.

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The Man on the Wall" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/opinion/friedman-the-man-on-the-wall.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=0), Thomas Friedman compares Ariel Sharon with Marine Col. Nathan Jessep, as played by Jack Nicholson  in the Hollywood classic “A Few Good Men.” I find this comparison offensive.

I was no "fan" of Ariel Sharon, but then I am not a fan of anyone. People, both great and small, come with their virtues and foibles, and this was also true of Sharon. However, when remembering Sharon, no one can deny that he was a leader.

Friedman mentions that "Sharon was deemed by a 1983 Israeli commission of inquiry as 'indirectly responsible' for the horrible massacre of Palestinian civilians by Phalangists in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps." Indeed, the disastrous mistake of allowing into the Palestinian camps the Christian Phalangists, who were hell-bent on revenge for the assassination of Lebanese president Bachir Gemayel, has always been a source of anguish for me.

On the other hand, Friedman also observes that Sharon was responsible for the 2005 unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. This withdrawal was necessary, notwithstanding the rocket fire from Gaza into Israel that ensued, and only someone with the right wing credentials of Sharon could have obtained the broad backing that was necessary to undertake this difficult step.

But nowhere in his opinion piece does Friedman mention that Sharon saved Israel during the War of Atonement in 1973, when he punched across the Suez Canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army, turning defeat into victory.

Sharon, who was very short and suffered from a lisp, was a born leader, whose successes and failures - both come with leadership - shaped the Middle East. Had he not suffered a severe stroke in 2006, might he have been able make peace with the Palestinians? Maybe, although Sharon never really believed it was possible in his lifetime.

Although Friedman tells us that he interviewed Sharon for his high school newspaper (Who cares?), this remarkable man does not deserve to be compared by Tom Terrific with a fictional movie character.

Seth Anziska, "A Preventable Massacre": More Israel Bashing From The New York Times

The Middle East is indeed a savage region. In 1982, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar al-Assad, killed some 25,000 Sunni civilians (there are higher and lower estimates) in the town of Hama. In 1988, Saddam Hussein killed some 5,000 civilians when he attacked the Kurdish town of Halabja with poison gas. Over 1,200 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since September 2000. And more recently, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has killed some 30,000 civilians while attempting to quell the current uprising of his country's Sunni majority.

Further afield in Central Asia, some 1,300 Afghan civilians have accidentally been killed by US-led military forces since Obama became president in 2009.

But never mind any of the above. Today, The New York Times would only have us focus on the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre. Over the course of this abomination, Lebanese Christian militiamen murdered some 800 Palestinian civilians in Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, after the Israeli Army allowed the Christians, hungry for revenge, access to the camps.

In his guest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Preventable Massacre" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html?pagewanted=all), Seth Anziska, a doctoral candidate in international history at Columbia University, informs us:

"Israel’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war began in June 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbor. Its goal was to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had set up a state within a state, and to transform Lebanon into a Christian-ruled ally."

Oh really? The 1982 Israeli operation had nothing to do with rooting out terror?

Seth fails to mention the "Coastal Road Massacre" of 1978, when Palestinians from Lebanon landed on Israel's coast, hijacked a bus, and killed 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.

Seth also forgets to tell us about the massive 1981 rocketing of civilian targets in Northern Israel by the PLO.

And then there was also the June 1982 attack in London on Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov, by the Iraqi-backed Abu Nidal terrorist organization. But why should Seth be troubled with such minor details?

Alleging deception and "browbeating" of US officials on the part of Ariel Sharon leading up to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, our darling doctoral candidate goes on to say:

"The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted. In the aftermath of the massacre, the United States felt compelled by 'guilt' to redeploy the Marines, who ended up without a clear mission, in the midst of a brutal civil war.

On Oct. 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed and 241 Marines were killed. The attack led to open warfare with Syrian-backed forces and, soon after, the rapid withdrawal of the Marines to their ships. As Mr. Lewis told me, America left Lebanon 'with our tail between our legs.'"

Regrettably, Seth again forgets to inform us that the barracks bombing was perpetrated by Lebanese Shiites, who, like the Lebanese Christians, also hated their Palestinian overlords. In addition, the attack was almost certainly undertaken pursuant to instructions from Iran, possibly owing to US support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Or in other words, there was little connection between the barracks bombing and Israel, unless you also wish to blame Israel for US combat deaths in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia.

Seth concludes:

"The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all."

"Most important, for the innocent people"? Oh really. Why isn't Seth telling us of the price being paid by civilians in Afghanistan, owing to Obama's inane escalation of that meaningless war? And why doesn't Seth bother to mention the ongoing civil war in Syria, ignored by Obama, which has claimed thousands of civilians lives?

In fact, publication by the Times of this guest op-ed by a doctoral student is all about telling us that the US shouldn't allow Netanyahu to "browbeat" the US into setting "red lines" for the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. Not by coincidence, this guest op-ed was published immediately after Netanyahu informed "Meet the Press" that Iran will be on the brink of a nuclear bomb in six to seven months (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=285287).

As observed in prior blog entries, the crux of the current crisis involving Iran and Israel involves lack of faith in Obama. After witnessing his foreign policy procrastination over the past three years, neither of these countries believes that Obama means what he says. In fact, this perception of Obama as irresolute and wishy-washy, i.e. "leading from behind," is what could well lead to a disastrous war, costing thousands of civilian lives.

If the US truly believes that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's maniacal mullahs do not pose a threat to American interests, taking into account hostility and proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia and also Iran's patronage of international terror, perhaps the US should not promulgate red lines. On the other hand, if, as stated today by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel but to the entire world (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/17/238533.html), then it is indeed time for tough talk.

[Columbia University lists Anziska's "Advisor" as Rashid Khalidi (see: http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/Anziska.html), a Columbia professor once linked to the PLO (see: http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2008/10/khalidi-of-the-plo/). A tape of Obama's 2003 tribute to Khalidi at a farewell party in Chicago is locked away in the offices of The Los Angeles Times (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy).]