Jodi Rudoren, "Netanyahu Takes A Lonely Stance Denouncing Iran": More Rubbish From Rudoren

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, the son of a historian, often complains to his inner circle that 'people have a historical memory that goes back to breakfast,'" begins Jodi Rudoren's New York Times news analysis entitled, "Netanyahu Takes A Lonely Stance Denouncing Iran" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/12/world/middleeast/alone-and-relishing-it-israeli-leader-presses-case-against-iran.html). Rudoren, who has a penchant for writing anti-Israel nonsense (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html), then fails to draw any historical analogy whatsoever to Israel's current predicament, and avoids reference to:

• The abandonment of Czechoslovakia by Neville Chamberlain prior to World War II in exchange for "peace in our time."

• The abandonment of Israel by President Johnson prior to the Six Day War in 1967, when the US and the West refused to arrange for a flotilla to breach the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran.

• The refusal of Henry Kissinger to rearm Israel during the Yom Kippur War, when Israel's fate hung in the balance. Kissinger stated at the time, “Let them bleed a little first.”

 
Rudoren instead uses this opportunity to shower Netanyahu with abuse:

• "he has sometimes come off sounding shrill."
• "Increasingly alone abroad and at home."
• "Mr. Netanyahu appears out of step with a growing Western consensus toward reaching a diplomatic deal that would require compromise."
• "Mr. Netanyahu and his wife, Sara — a psychologist whom many Israelis criticize for everything from her purported temper to her child-rearing methods — have withstood mini-scandals regarding their spending on vanilla and pistachio ice cream (about $2,800 a year) . . ."
• "Iran has been Mr. Netanyahu’s priority — many say obsession."
• "Critics and admirers alike say it is a Messianic crusade."

Well, I think my spending on ice cream rivals that of the Netanyahu family, although I prefer flavors more exotic than vanilla.

But more to the point, what does it matter that Netanyahu is "out of step with a growing Western consensus" regarding a compromise involving Iran's nuclear weapons development program? Is this the same "Western consensus" that did absolutely nothing when Assad murdered civilians with chemical weapons in Syria? Although Obama has pledged that he will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon (see: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/03/obama-to-iran-and-israel-as-president-of-the-united-states-i-dont-bluff/253875/), the world has learned that Obama's "red lines" are drawn in washable crayon.  

Rudoren just happens to mention, "The prime minister’s stance on Iran, his signature issue, though, is popular with the [Israeli] public." Yes, having listened for many years to Iranian threats of annihilation, the Israeli public is cognizant of Netanyahu's concern.

But given that it is only a nation of Jews facing extinction, why, given historical precedent, should the rest of the world rouse itself and do anything whatsoever? In fact, it is no wonder that Netanyahu finds himself increasingly isolated.

Jodi Rudoren, "New Apartments Will Complicate Jerusalem Issue": The "Experts" Tell Us . . .

In case you missed it, New York Times reporter Jodi Rudoren wrote two days ago in an article entitled "New Apartments Will Complicate Jerusalem Issue" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/world/middleeast/in-jerusalem-jewish-apartments-in-arab-neighborhoods-complicate-issue.html?hp&pagewanted=all&_r=0):

"While most experts on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have long imagined Jerusalem as ultimately being divided, with Jewish neighborhoods remaining part of Israel and Arab ones joining Palestine, these new buildings make such a plan more complicated if not impossible — which may be exactly the point."

"Experts"? Please name them.

But more to the point, what would be so terrible if Jerusalem were to be divided, and Jews were to continue to live in the eastern part of Jerusalem, controlled by the Palestinian Authority? Must Palestine be Judenfrei?

If there is ever going to be peace between Jews and Palestinians, they are going to have to learn to live together.

And yet we constantly hear the insipid reprise that Israel is "apartheid."

By the way, this is the same Jodi Rudoren who was responsible for the canard, repeated by Thomas Friedman (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html), that Israel's E1 construction, would divide the West Bank in two (see also: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=10&x_journo=603).

Second Open Letter to Margaret Sullivan, Public Editor of The New York Times: Perpetuation of Falsehoods by Your Newspaper's Editorial Page

Dear Ms. Sullivan,

As you will recall, on December 11, 2012 I sent you an e-mail concerning the following passage from Thomas Friedman's December 4, 2012 op-ed entitled "Iron Empires, Iron Fists, Iron Domes":

"The far-right group running Israel today is so arrogant, and so indifferent to U.S. concerns, that it announced plans to build a huge block of settlements in the heart of the West Bank — in retaliation for the U.N. vote giving Palestinians observer status — even though the U.S. did everything possible to block that vote and the settlements would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state."

Friedman's mistaken contention that Israel's planned E1 construction "would sever any possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state" followed on the heels of Jodi Rudoren's specious claim in her December 2, 2012 Times article entitled "Dividing the West Bank, and Deepening a Rift" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/world/middleeast/2-state-solution-at-risk-in-israeli-building-plan.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&) that E1 construction would divide the West Bank. On December 16, the Times was forced to correct Rudoren's article:

"An article on Dec. 2 about Israel’s decision to move forward with planning and zoning for settlements in an area east of Jerusalem known as E1 described imprecisely the effect of such development on access to the cities of Ramallah and Bethlehem from Jerusalem, and on the West Bank. Development of E1 would limit access to Ramallah and Bethlehem, leaving narrow corridors far from the Old City and downtown Jerusalem; it would not completely cut off those cities from Jerusalem. It would also create a large block of Israeli settlements in the center of the West Bank; it would not divide the West Bank in two. And because of an editing error, the article referred incompletely to the possibility of a contiguous Palestinian state. Critics see E1 as a threat to the meaningful contiguity of such a state because it would leave some Palestinian areas connected by roads with few exits or by circuitous routes; the proposed development would not technically make a contiguous Palestinian state impossible."

Rudoren's subsequent excuse (http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/12/elliott-abrams-slams-nyts-jodi-rudoren-152407.html):

"On deadline, late at night and at the end of a very long couple of weeks, I used imprecise language and, yes, did not study the map carefully enough."

Notwithstanding the correction to Rudoren's article, and notwithstanding my e-mails to both Andrew Rosenthal and you, the falsehood in Friedman's op-ed was never corrected.

Worse still, in a December 20, 2012 Times editorial entitled "The Fading Mideast Peace Dream" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/opinion/the-fading-mideast-peace-dream.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1&), your newspaper went on record as stating:

"So far this week, Mr. Netanyahu’s hard-line government, defying the Western powers, has approved construction of more than 6,000 new housing units. The approvals follow an announcement late last month that Israel would continue planning for new development in the E1 area — a project northeast of Jerusalem that would split the West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state."

Again, as provided by Section 15 of your newspaper's "Ethical Journalism, A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" (http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf):

"The Times treats is readers as fairly and openly as possible. In print and online, we tell our readers the complete, unvarnished truth as best we can learn it. It is our policy to correct our errors large and small, as soon as we become aware of them."

As further provided Section 16 of your "Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments" provides:

"Simple courtesy suggests that we not alienate our readers by ignoring their letters and e-mails that warrant reply."

Are we to understand that op-ed columnists, such as Mr. Friedman, are entitled to play fast and loose with the facts, or, must they also be corrected when their underlying factual assumptions are mistaken?

Can New York Times editorials also assert falsehoods without correction?

In addition, I am curious why you and your staff, decided that there was no need to respond to my December 11 e-mail to you. Perhaps you can also inquire why Andrew Rosenthal thought it was appropriate to ignore my December 8 e-mail to him, a copy of which was also sent to you, concerning Thomas Friedman's error.

Does "simple courtesy" no longer exist at the Times?

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey