New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s Election": Quietly Acknowledging a Lie

In a January 23 2013 editorial entitled "Israel’s Election" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/24/opinion/israels-election.html?ref=opinion&_r=1&), The New York Times writes:

"Although he also has endorsed a two-state solution, Mr. Netanyahu has so aggressively built new settlements that it soon may be impossible to create a contiguous Palestinian state."

Peculiar. 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&), the Times 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."

So which is it: "it soon may be impossible to create a contiguous Palestinian state" or E1 "would split the West Bank and prevent the creation of a viable contiguous Palestinian state"? There's a big difference.

I previously informed Margaret Sullivan, the public editor of the Times, that E1 construction would not sever a contiguous Palestinian state (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/12/second-open-letter-to-margaret-sullivan.html); however, Sullivan chose not to write back to me, and the Times, in contravention of its ethical guidelines, decided not to issue a retraction.

Needless to say, the latest Times editorial also fails to mention that Israeli settlements are built on less than two percent of the total territory of the West Bank.

The latest Times editorial concludes:

"The White House on Wednesday renewed its call for peace talks to resume. This won’t mean much if President Obama is not ready to invest political capital in a new diplomatic initiative. Unlike the bungled effort in his first term, though, he needs to carefully prepare the political ground, including making his first trip to Israel as president and explaining to the Israeli people how any peace plan will enhance their security."

Obama should visit Israel and reassure "the Israeli people how any peace plan will enhance their security"? Well, this could prove difficult at a time when Obama is seeking the appointment of Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense.