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, "Go Ahead, Ruin My Day": Sorry, Tom, Obama Decided the Election in Favor of Bibi

Definition of "Schadenfreude"

"A feeling of enjoyment that comes from seeing or hearing about the troubles of other people."

- Merriam-Webster Dictionary

It should come as no surprise that would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman is devastated by Netanyahu's victory in Israel's parliamentary elections. What a shame! . . . not. Writing about Israel, Iran and Iraq in a New York Times op-ed entitled "Go Ahead, Ruin My Day," Friedman begins by commenting upon Netanyahu's success:

"Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud Party pretty well trounced the Labor Party leader, Isaac Herzog, in the race to form Israel’s next government. Netanyahu clearly made an impressive 11th-hour surge since the pre-election polls of last week. It is hard to know what is more depressing: that Netanyahu went for the gutter in the last few days in order to salvage his campaign — renouncing his own commitment to a two-state solution with the Palestinians and race-baiting Israeli Jews to get out and vote because, he said, too many Israeli Arabs were going to the polls — or the fact that this seemed to work.

To be sure, Netanyahu could reverse himself tomorrow. As the Yediot Ahronot columnist Nahum Barnea wrote: Netanyahu’s promises are like something 'written on ice on a very hot day.' But the fact is a good half of Israel identifies with the paranoid, everyone-is-against-us, and religious-nationalist tropes Netanyahu deployed in this campaign. That, along with the fact that some 350,000 settlers are now living in the West Bank, makes it hard to see how a viable two-state solution is possible anymore no matter who would have won."

Well, it should come as no surprise that Friedman is mistaken on all counts.

Israeli polls are notoriously inaccurate, and I am dubious whether Netanyahu's Likud Party went from a four parliamentary seat deficit to a six seat advantage over Herzog's Labor Party owing to anything Bibi said over the past several days.

But more to the point, I am not religious, I don't live in the West Bank, I believe in a two-state solution (if ever the Palestinians will accept this), and I detest the lifestyle and shenanigans of Bibi; however, I voted yesterday for the Likud for the first time in my life, albeit with a clothespin over my nose. Why? Simple. I believe that there has been a resurgence of anti-Semitism around the globe, and I am convinced that Iran poses an existential threat to Israel. When Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei tells me that he wishes to annihilate Israel, I believe him. On the other hand, I don't think that everyone is against us. Canada is not against Israel. The Czech Republic is not against Israel. Obama, on the other hand, is against Israel, as evidenced by the fact that he is willing to give Iran the unrestricted right to manufacture an arsenal of nuclear weapons within a decade.

If someone wishes to argue that Obama is not against Israel, I suggest that they ask The Los Angeles Times to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Rashid Khalidi. It's just not going to happen. I have always argued that Obama is a radical in moderate clothing, but with less than two years remaining of his second term, the disguise is slipping away.

So why vote this time for the Likud instead of Labor? Because Israel's back is up against the wall, and I have serious doubts whether Herzog has the gumption to stand up to Obama concerning Iran. Was I alone yesterday, voting for the Likud for reasons of survival? Not a chance, as I learned after speaking with friends at the polling station. It turns out that none other than Obama decided the election in favor of Bibi.

Roger Cohen, "Israel’s Vote Without Victory"*: Do You Remember "Dewey Defeats Truman"?

[* The title of the op-ed has now been changed to "An Uneasy Coalition for Israel."]


Do you remember the famous pictures of Harry Truman holding up a copy of The Chicago Tribune declaring "Dewey Defeats Truman"? Well, none other than Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen has managed to provide us with his own special revival of this journalistic debacle. In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel’s Vote Without Victory," Cohen writes:

"If the Israeli election was above all a referendum on the leadership of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, he did not lose it. After accumulating nine years in office over three terms, that is a measure of his political guts, however limited his political achievements.

Nor, however, did he win it, according to early exit polls, and a long season of Israeli uncertainty now looks inevitable, despite the cries of victory from Netanyahu’s right-wing Likud Party.

. . . .

But many Israelis are tired of Netanyahu’s games; they embrace a different idea of Israel.

. . . .

As with Churchill’s words on democracy, a national unity coalition now looks like the worst form of government for Israel except for all the others. It could curtail Netanyahu’s hubris while giving Herzog heft, a desirable double whammy."

However, with 95 percent of the vote tallied, Netanyahu's Likud currently leads Herzog's Zionist Union by five parliamentary seats, and Netanyahu is almost certainly assured of forming the next government in Israel.

As always, nice work, Roger!