Yesterday, in an editorial entitled "Israel and America After the Iran Deal," The New York Times labeled the supply to Israel of a massive ordnance penetrator capable of destroying Iran's Fordo underground nuclear facility as a "dubious provision," which "would be provocative and dangerous." But whereas the Times would have the United States walk on eggshells to prevent Khamenei and his henchmen from abandoning Obama's unsigned legacy-creating nuclear deal, the newspaper chooses to ignore recent Iranian declarations calling for the destruction of Israel, promising continued material support for Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad in their "resistance" to the US and Israel, and announcing that they will not abide by UN restrictions on their ICBM development program.
In this editorial, the Times goes one step further and blames Israel for Middle East instability (my emphasis in red):
"America has a responsibility to help ensure the security of Israel and the gulf allies and to see that Iran adheres to the deal. But this cannot be done if Congress imposes restrictions that cause the agreement to implode or prevent the administration from taking advantage of openings to cooperate with Iran. Congress can be most helpful by creating its own process for rigorously monitoring how the accord is implemented.
The focus on America’s obligations often ignores the responsibility Israel and the gulf states have for regional security. Saudi Arabia shares much blame for the rise of extremist groups, while Israel undermines stability by failing to negotiate peace with the Palestinians."
Israel has failed to negotiate with the Palestinians? Nice try! The Times ignores the fact that it is Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, now in his eleventh year of his four-year term in office, who is interested in maintaining the status quo. Abbas declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009:
"'I will wait for Hamas to accept international commitments. I will wait for Israel to freeze settlements,' he said. 'Until then, in the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life.'"
This statement was made after 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.
But why should the truth matter to the editorial board of the Times?
Meanwhile, The Washington Post yesterday published an editorial entitled "Jason Rezaian’s case proves Iran still can’t be trusted." WaPo said of the ongoing imprisonment of its reporter in Tehran's notorious Evin Prison:
"WITH THE international community preparing to lift most sanctions on Iran, its president, Hassan Rouhani, no doubt will present his nation as ready to take its rightful, respected place in the world when he addresses the U.N. General Assembly on Monday. The world, including the Obama administration, should think twice about that. Any nation that holds innocent journalists captive, in violation of its own laws and of international norms, will be regarded with suspicion, and deservedly so."
The WaPo editorial goes on to say:
"Eager to complete an agreement on Iranian nuclear capability and win approval for it in Congress, the administration has been reluctant to say much about Iran’s egregious human rights violations at home or support of terrorism abroad. We favor the nuclear deal, but that can’t be the only element in the U.S.-Iranian relationship."
Excuse me boys and girls, but how can you favor Obama's unsigned nuclear deal with Khamenei if Iran "can't be trusted"?
Just asking . . .
No comments:
Post a Comment