David Ignatius, "What does Israel want from America?": What Ignatius Isn't Telling Us

Tweet

You will recall that in a March 31, 2015 Washington Post opinion piece  entitled "Deal or no deal, the Iran talks have borne fruit," David Ignatius wrote:

"Whatever the endgame produces, it’s useful to focus on the process of negotiation itself, which is nearly as important as whether there’s a sustainable deal.

First, there is the fact of U.S.-Iranian engagement. For more than 18 months, Iran has been in direct talks with a power it once demonized as the 'Great Satan.' Iranian hard-liners certainly remain, but the nation that chanted in unison 'Death to America' is probably gone forever."

When I sent emails to Ignatius and provided evidence that he was wrong, he wrote back to me and declared:

"You miss my point entirely. What I said was that the NATION will never again chant it in UNISON. There will still be fanatical hardliners but they are beginning to be outliers."

Well, as we were informed last month by Majid Rafizadeh in a Gatestone Institute article entitled "Iran to Trump: Death to America Will Live On":

"Ideologically speaking, Iran's hardliners, primarily Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior officials of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) who enjoy the final say in Iran's domestic and foreign policies, have made it clear that Iran will not change the core pillars of its religious and revolutionary establishment: Anti-Americanism and hatred towards the 'Great Satan' and the 'Little Satan', Israel.

Supporters of Ayatollah Khamenei and the IRGC enthusiastically shouted 'Death to America' in response to a recent speech that Khamenei gave, applauding the 1979 hostage-taking and takeover of the US Embassy in Tehran.

Iran's major state newspapers carried anti-American headlines this week, quoting the Supreme Leader. In his latest public speech to thousands of people, which was televised via Iran's state TV, Khamenei made it clear that Trump's presidency will cause 'no difference' to Iran-US relationships. Khamenei pointed out that, 'We have no judgment on this election because America is the same America'. In his speech, Khamenei attacked President-elect Donald Trump and the American people. The Ayatollah called the US election 'a spectacle for exposing their crimes and debacles.'"

I missed Ignatius's point entirely? Yeah, right.

In any event, Ignatius is back again today with more rubbish in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "What does Israel want from America?" Ignatius would now have us know:

"President Trump’s embrace of Israel poses an unlikely dilemma for leaders of the Jewish state: They have to decide what they want from America, and on that question, there’s sharp disagreement.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu moved to seize the Trump moment Tuesday by announcing that Israel plans to construct 2,500 housing units in West Bank settlements. Just two days before, he and Trump had what the new president called a 'very nice' phone conversation. 'We’re building — and will continue to build,' an emboldened Netanyahu proclaimed Tuesday."

But what isn't Ignatius telling us? As reported today in a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Israel Announces Plans to Build 2,500 New West Bank Housing Units" by Herb Keinon:

"Most of the new units will be inside the major settlement blocs, with [Israeli Defense Minsiter Avigdor] Liberman saying that only 106 are outside the blocs.

. . . .

Liberman said that, in parallel to these moves, he will bring for the security cabinet’s approval plans to establish a Palestinian industrial zone near Tarkumiya, south of Hebron. According to the statement, this will be one of the largest industrial areas in the territories."

Or stated otherwise, the overwhelming majority of the new units are inside existing settlement blocs that will remain with Israel in any deal involving land swaps.

And then there is that small matter of a new Palestinian industrial zone, which Ignatius fails to mention.

Yes, I know, these are inconvenient truths, and I am hardly surprised that they don't find expression in Ignatius's op-ed.

Griff Witte, "Israeli settlements grew on Obama’s watch. They may be poised for a boom on Trump’s.": Witless

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "Israeli settlements grew on Obama’s watch. They may be poised for a boom on Trump’s.," Griff Witte writes of Israeli West Bank construction "in these sacred, militarily occupied hills [almost makes you want to cry]":

"[E]very day they become a more entrenched reality on land that Palestinians say should rightfully belong to them. As the parched beige hilltops fill with red-tiled homes, decades of international efforts to achieve a two-state solution are unraveling.

. . . .

Today, about 400,000 Israelis live in approximately 150 settlements scattered across the West Bank. That’s up from fewer than 300,000 when Barack Obama was elected. An additional 200,000 Israelis live in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians want as their future capital."

However, as observed last week in a Washington Post editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started" (my emphasis in red):

"In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Similarly, Rick Richman wrote in a December 28, 2016 Commentary article entitled "It’s Not the Settlements, Stupid":

"The figure of 100,000 sounds significant until you realize that 80 percent of it has been in the settlement blocs 'everyone knows' Israel will retain in any conceivable peace agreement. The 20,000 person increase east of the separation barrier, established to stop the wave of Palestinian mass murders against Israelis, translates into less than one percent of the population in the disputed territories, over a period of eight years."

Witte also fails to take into account what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. Additionally, he does not make mention of past Israeli evacuations of Sinai and Gaza.

Witte goes on to say:

"'Everyone who talks about a Palestinian state today knows it will not happen,' said Naftali Bennett, Israel’s education minister and leader of the right-wing Jewish Home party.

. . . .

It’s not clear whether Netanyahu will be willing to go as far as his education minister, an ally at times but a fierce rival at others. Netanyahu is still on record supporting a two-state solution, albeit grudgingly."

Netanyahu supports a "two-state solution, albeit grudgingly"? Netanyahu last month declared on 60 Minutes:

"I’m willing to negotiate with [the Palestinian Authority] at any moment. I haven’t reversed my position. I’ve said, ‘Look, we will solve this because we want two nation states at peace and with the proper security arrangements.’ Two states for two peoples…. that’s where I’m focused."

And whereas Witte is happy to quote Bennett, he avoids mention of the position taken by Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who lives on the West Bank and has stated "I even agree to vacate my settlement if there really will be a two-state solution." More recently, as reported by The Times of Israel in a November 16, 2016 article entitled "Liberman open to building freeze outside settlement blocs," this right-wing firebrand said that he is "ready to freeze building outside the blocs in exchange for an American agreement to expand settlement building in Efrat, Ma’ale Adumim and other areas widely expected to remain under Israeli sovereignty in the event of a future peace deal."

Bottom line: Witte's "news" item is devoid of balance, but why should we be surprised?

Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering, "Speaking truth to our ally Israel": What About Speaking Truth to Pickering?

Tweet

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Speaking truth to our ally Israel," 91-year-old Brent Scowcroft and Thomas Pickering appear to take issue with last week's WaPo editorial entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started," which excoriated America's lame duck president and John Kerry (see my prior blog item, "Rashid Khalidi, John Kerry and Israel: 'Too Little and Too Late': More Israel Bashing From The New York Times"). Scowcroft and Pickering write in their op-ed:

"In recent days, the Obama administration has undertaken two significant actions regarding the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It refrained from vetoing a resolution at the U.N. Security Council that, among other things, detailed the devastating impact that Israeli settlement expansion is having on the prospects for a two-state peace agreement. And in a landmark speech, Secretary of State John F. Kerry warned that the trend toward a one-state reality is becoming increasingly entrenched, and he set out principles for a lasting peace based on a two-state solution."

"Devastating impact"? Needless to say, no mention by Scowcroft and Pickering of the fact acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat that Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank. However, there is something else missing from Scowcroft and Pickering's opinion piece, and I have just dashed off the following email to Fred Hiatt, WaPo's editorial page editor:

Dear Mr. Hiatt,

At the bottom of The Washington Post opinion piece by Brent Scowcroft and Thomas R. Pickering, entitled "Speaking truth to our ally Israel," The Washington Post describes Pickering as follows:

"Thomas R. Pickering is a retired United States ambassador. Among his many diplomatic appointments, he served as U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations from 1989 to 1992."

The Washington Post's description fails to mention that Pickering today is prominently listed ("top billing") by the National Iranian American Council, which is anything but friendly to Israel, as a member of its Advisory Board.

I kindly ask that The Washington Post's description of Pickering be corrected to reflect his membership on the Advisory Board of the National Iranian American Council, which is highly relevant to the substance of this opinion piece.

It is also worth noting that both Scowcroft and Pickering actively urged approval of the P5+1's nuclear deal with Iran.

Yours sincerely,
Jeffrey

It's worth reading The Daily Beast article entitled "Boeing’s Man Pushed for the Iran Nuclear Deal—and Now the Company Is Selling $25 Billion Worth of Planes to Tehran," which informs us (my emphasis in red:

"Boeing is grabbing headlines for its first-of-its-kind, $25 billion deal with Iran Air, Tehran’s state-owned airline.

But the American aerospace giant isn’t exactly publicizing the fact that it paid a lobbying firm to “monitor” the nuclear agreement that made its $25 billion sale to Tehran possible. Or that Boeing has on its payroll a former top Clinton administration official who used his clout to garner support in the corridors of powers for the Iran deal.

Thomas Pickering, one of the country’s most respected diplomats and a and former ambassador to Israel and the United Nations, has been quietly taking money from Boeing while vocally supporting the Iran nuclear deal—testifying before Congress, writing letters to high-level officials, and penning op-eds for outlets like The Washington Post."

Let's see if Mr. Hiatt gets back to me.

Rashid Khalidi, "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late": More Israel Bashing From The New York Times

Tweet

Do you remember the controversy surrounding Obama and Rashid Khalidi?  The Los Angeles Times still refuses to release the video of Obama speaking at a 2003 going-away party honoring Khalidi, at which virulent anti-Semitism was expressed by other speakers. Well, it should come as no surprise that today, in the aftermath of John Kerry's speech earlier this week attacking Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Khalidi is being given space on The New York Times op-ed page to vent his spleen at Israel. Described by the Times as "a professor of Arab studies at Columbia who was an adviser to the Palestinian delegation during peace negotiations from 1991 to 1993" (no mention, of course, by the Times of the relationship between Obama and Khalidi or the video stashed away in a Los Angeles Times safe), Khalidi bashes Israel in his Times guest op-ed entitled "John Kerry and Israel: Too Little and Too Late":

"During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000. Simultaneously, for eight years Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has directed a barrage of calculated slights, insults and acts of disrespect at the president of the United States. The Obama administration has finally reacted with Mr. Kerry’s speech and by allowing Resolution 2334, which condemns Israeli settlement expansion, to pass in the United Nations Security Council. By doing so, the United States simply acted in accordance with international law and the global consensus of nearly 50 years.

Meanwhile, a third generation of Palestinian children is growing up under a brutal occupation and Gaza has been under siege for a decade. Palestinians are obliged to seek the permission of the Israeli military for the most basic of needs, such as medical treatment, or to travel abroad or even just to Jerusalem."

Fascinating. Khalidi would have us believe that there are no hospitals in the West Bank or Gaza. In fact, there are some 60 hospitals and medical centers in the West Bank and Gaza, and although I am not claiming that Palestinian medical facilities are on a par with Israeli facilities, it is worth noting that average life expectancy in the West Bank is 75.91, compared with 75.69 in Hungary, 75.41 in China, 75.05 in Saudi Arabia, 74.57 in Turkey, 74.35 in Jordan, 73.70 in Egypt, and 71.15 in Iran.

Khalidi describes Israel's "occupation" of the West Bank as "brutal"? Consider what Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, now in his twelfth year of his four-year term in office, declared to Jackson Diehl in 2009 (my emphasis in red):

"'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. 

As for Khalidi's claim that "During Mr. Obama’s eight years in office, the illegal Israeli settler population has swelled by 100,000, to well over 600,000." An answer to this rubbish is to be found in an editorial in today's Washington Post entitled "On Israel, we’re right back where Obama started," which informs us (my emphasis in red):

"THE OBAMA administration is ending eight years of failed Middle East diplomacy exactly where it began in 2009 — with an exaggerated and misguided focus on Israeli settlement construction. As he railed at the continuing growth of West Bank Jewish housing on Wednesday with a prolixity that Fidel Castro would have admired, Secretary of State John F. Kerry sounded a lot like President Obama during the early months of his first term, when he insisted that the Israeli government freeze all construction as a starting point for negotiations on a Palestinian state.

. . . .

Mr. Kerry’s speech was, above all, a vivid demonstration of the administration’s inability to learn from its mistakes or adjust the ideological tenets that Mr. Obama brought to office.

. . . .

In fact, the two-state solution remains entirely viable, as even the settlement statistics cited by Mr. Kerry demonstrate. The administration asserts that the Jewish population in the West Bank has increased by 100,000 since 2009 — but by Mr. Kerry’s account, 80 percent of that growth was in areas Israel would likely annex in any settlement. In eight years, 20,000 people have been added to communities in territory likely to become part of Palestine — an area where 2.75 million Arabs now live. That growth of about 3 percent per annum, the product of a restraint for which Mr. Netanyahu received no White House credit, means that the Jewish population outside Israel’s West Bank fence may have decreased as a percentage of the overall population even as Mr. Obama and Mr. Kerry have made it the focal point of U.S. policy."

Perhaps the WaPo editorial should have also observed what was acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484).


Bottom line: Khalidi's Israel bashing op-ed amounts to just one more effort by The New York Times to discredit Israel during the waning days of the Obama administration. Despicable.

[I sent this blog item to Andrew Rosenthal, former editorial page editor of The New York Times:

Dear Andrew,

I thought you might be interested.

Jeffrey

Rosenthal's response:

I'm not sure why. But thanks.

Andy

Why am I not surprised?]

The Times of Israel, "Feinstein defends Obama over UN settlement vote": Obama's Final Poke in the Eye

Tweet

In a Times of Israel article entitled "Feinstein defends Obama over UN settlement vote," Senator Dianne Feinstein is quoted as stating:

"I’ve watched with growing concern the increase in Israeli settlements over the years, where approximately 400,0000 individuals now live. I believe the expansion of settlements has but one goal: to undermine the viability of a two-state solution."

Below are my published comments in response to this article and those of someone who answered me:

JG:
Feinstein: "I’ve watched with growing concern the increase in Israeli settlements over the years, where approximately 400,0000 individuals now live." Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat: Israeli settlements have been built on only some 1.1% of the West Bank.

A pity Feinstein is not more concerned with the Hamas covenant, which calls for the murder of all Jews, or Fatah calls for a Palestine "from the river to the sea."


LS · London:
So does building settlements make Israel more or less secure? I dont follow the logic. Will settlements prevent violence or merely forment more ? It certainlhy hasnt made israel more secure or respected in the international community. This What-about-ery rarely seems to address the question. On the only basis it can be determined by men (the legal&equitable one ). Israel will always have the protection of her friends ..... that doesnt mean she will enjoy their support when she breaks international law. I doubt there wil be any serious consequences on Israel as a result of this UNSC statement. It wont prevent her building more settlements - successive governments in Israel have proven committed to settlement buiding. It does however send a message (however laced with Irony that is the US- of all states - that ultimately helped deliver it ).

No state should be above the rule of law. None.


JG:
Sorry, but Israel will never be secure or respected by the "international community." Query for you, Lekan: Where does the "international community" stand regarding the occupation of all of Tibet by China? And what has the "international community" done regarding the atrocities committed by Russia and Iran against civilians in Syria? In fact, the "international community" has done nothing. After all, it's so much more fun to condemn Israel.

And what does the "international community" have to say about "honor killings" against women in the Muslim Middle East, including the West Bank and Gaza? And what does the "international community" tell us about the murders of gays throughout the Muslim Middle East? Again, the "international community" does not care.

By the way, Lekan, are you aware that when Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Abbas an independent state along the 1967 lines with agreed land swaps and Palestinian control of east Jerusalem, Abbas refused? Do you know that several years earlier, Israeli Prime Minister Barak similarly offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and tear down 63 Israeli settlements? In exchange for the settlements that would remain part of Israel, Barak said he would increase the size of Gaza by a third. Barak also agreed to Palestinian control of much of East Jerusalem, which would become Palestine's capital, and Palestinian sovereignty over the Temple Mount. Arafat, however, also refused.

"So does building settlements make Israel more or less secure?" I favor a two-state solution, i.e. a solution to the conflict that provides for two states accepting one another's right to live in peace. But there can also be no denying that after Israel left Gaza, some 12,000 missiles have been fired at Israeli kibbutzim, towns and cities. How do these missiles, in your opinion, accord with so-called "international law"? Will Israel be "safer" if missiles are also fired from the West Bank at Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem?


LS · London:
Jeffrey Grossman simple question bro - theres alot of what-about-ery here. which as i said in my first post - is beside the point and extraneous to the specific matter in hand. the ills and wrongs of the other side do not legitmise the ills and wrongs of 'our side'

With regard to my knowledge of the history of the differnt negotiations and summits , viz camp david, tabtha, and others (plus the law/resolutions and conventions that should underpin them) the answer is yes, I am aware. I am also aware that Barak was not offering a solution based on the accepted 1967 constraints/borders (despite protestations of some to the contrary). I'm also aware that other offers to stop settlement buildings we tied to conditions and blueprints that werent acceptable to the palestinian people - mainly the lack of a contiguous state untinerrupted by Israeli occupied lands. On top of which the simple principle that the offer of cessation of illegal activity (by a sovereign state) is being used as a bargaining chip - is hardly a legitmate or respectable tactic. The state sponsored illegal activity should stop if we are law abiding nations.
So it isnt quite as straight forward as implying that successive israeli leaders have magnanimously offered to the palestinians (that which is theirs by law incidentally ) and the palestinians have just been unreasonable. That not an accuate or believable version of events from our side. You answer the question of security with a question about the law of missles, which doesnt speak as to whether the evidence supports the implied thesis that settlements make Israel more secure - they clearly do not.

I want Israel and Palestine to be secure in their respective states; but we cant have it all our own way. We cant do provocative acts and expect/demand security any more than the palestinian authorities or Hamas and Hezbollah can expect peace for the firing of rockets.


JG:
"I'm also aware that other offers to stop settlement buildings we tied to conditions and blueprints that werent acceptable to the palestinian people - mainly the lack of a contiguous state untinerrupted by Israeli occupied lands." Sorry, Lekan, but when Arafat and Abbas respectively declined the offers of Barak and Olmert, the issue of a contiguous Palestinian state was never raised. Again, this is because the settlements, built on only 1.1 percent of the West Bank as per Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, do not stand in the way of a contiguous Palestinian state.

Moreover, Erekat has accepted the principle of land swaps to deal with the issue of Israeli settlements.

Like you, "I want Israel and Palestine to be secure in their respective states," but there is also that small matter of the Hamas Charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, and repeated Fatah demands for a Palestine "from the river to the sea" without the presence of a single Jew.

CNN and The New York Times: The End of Ethical Journalism

In a lead May 17, 2015 CNN article entitled "Israeli settlers reportedly chop down 800 Palestinian olive trees" by Don Melvin, we are told:

"The official Palestianian news agency is reporting that Israeli settlers have chopped down and seized about 800 Palestinian-owned olive trees near the town of Shuyukh, east of Hebron.

The report, by WAFA, the Palestine News & Information Agency, cited 'a local source,' whom it did not identify. Israel has yet to comment on the report.

The source, described by WAFA as 'a local activist,' told the agency that residents of the Israeli settlements of Bani Kadim and Asfar broke into an olive orchard near the town and chopped down the trees, which belonged to people who lived in the area."

However, as observed by The Elder of Zion:

"OK, how can we tell that this is garbage? By looking at the wording in Wafa. It says 'Israeli settlers Sunday chopped down and seized about 800 olive trees belonging to Palestinians near the town of Shuyukh, east of Hebron, according to a local source.'

What does 'chopped down and seized' mean? 400 chopped down and 400 seized? Or did they chop down 800 olive trees and then put them onto a convoy of trucks to cart them away?

It takes a long time to chop down a mature olive tree. New saplings, which are often planted by Palestinians in order to steal public land, are relatively easy to uproot, but this says 'chopped down and seized.'

No photos. No videos. No named sources. No corroboration. WAFA reports a story that matches none of the normal standards of journalism- and CNN parrots it under the guise of only reporting what anti-Israel Arab media is saying."

CNN knows no shame.

And then there was a May 16, 2015 New York Times article yesterday entitled "In Vatican, Abbas Is Praised as ‘Angel of Peace’" by Elisabetta Povoledo, which begins:

"Pope Francis praised Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority, as an 'angel of peace' during a meeting at the Vatican on Saturday. The Vatican also expressed hope that Israel and the Palestinians would resume talks 'to find a just and lasting solution to the conflict' that has roiled the Middle East for decades."

However, as reported by The Weekly Standard in an article entitled "Media Gets Pope’s Abbas Comments Wrong" by Tom Gross:

"If anyone needs further evidence of why the news agencies often can’t be trusted to report accurately on Israel and the Palestinians, and why major news outlets such as the New York Times and the BBC should stop repeating agency copy without verifying it, here is an important example from this weekend.

According to Italian and Spanish news outlets and according to the Vatican’s own website, Pope Francis told Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he could be an angel of peace. 'May you be an angel of peace,' he urged Abbas, effectively saying that if Abbas would take the decision to accept one of the peace offers that various Israeli prime ministers have made to him, or at least make a serious counter-offer, he could be an angel of peace. The pope did not say that Abbas – infamous for ordering the Munich Olympic massacre, among many other atrocities – was 'an angel of peace'

And yet the BBC and New York Times were among dozens of prominent news outlets that claimed he did."

Yes, there is a difference between asking Abbas to be an angel of peace and declaring Abbas to be an angel of peace, and yes, we live in a world gone rotten.

Rawabi: An Ugly Washington Post Falsehood on the Eve of Netanyahu's Speech to Congress

On the eve of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech before Congress, The Washington Post's homepage is currently highlighting a six-day old video, telling us that Israel is refusing to provide Rawabi, a newly-built Palestinian city, with water. However, this problem was resolved several days ago. Why does WaPo persist with this story? As you can see below, I have contacted Martin Baron, WaPo's editor, and let's see what he has to say:

Dear Martin,

We have corresponded in the past.

 

On your homepage, you are currently highlighting a video entitled "A Palestinian city caught in conflict" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/posttv/world/a-palestinian-city-caught-in-conflict/2015/02/24/4c656532-bc78-11e4-9dfb-03366e719af8_video.html), concerning the newly-built Palestinian city of Rawabi, which, according to WaPo, is being denied water by Israel.

 

However, as noted in a Feb. 1, 2015 Times of Israel article entitled "Palestinian city plans to move forward after water deal" (http://www.timesofisrael.com/palestinian-city-plans-to-move-forward-after-water-deal/), this problem was resolved several days ago.

 

See also the Boston Globe article entitled "Netanyahu OK’s water link to new Palestinian city" (http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/world/2015/02/28/netanyahu-intervenes-approve-water-links-new-palestinian-city/yEwtk6spRPzY7Kx7X3QvyO/story.html).

 

I question why WaPo is running this incorrect story on its homepage hours before Netanyahu's speech to Congress.

 

Yours sincerely,

Jeffrey

[The link to the video on "post tv" is now gone. Mr. Baron very graciously responded to my email and informed me that upon opening my email, he didn't see the video on the homepage. Mr. Baron also indicated that WaPo had promptly and prominently reported that Israel had agreed to supply water to Rawabi.]

Sabrien Amrov and Alaa Tartir, "Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza": Thanksgiving Israel-Bashing From The New York Times

In yet another Israel-bashing New York Times op-ed entitled "Subcontracting Repression in the West Bank and Gaza," Sabrien Amrov and Alaa Tartir write:

"Palestinians under Israeli occupation need a police force to maintain internal law and order, but one that is accountable to the people themselves, not to Israel or the donor community."

Their conclusion:

"There can be no security for Israel if Palestinians do not have their basic rights."

The Palestinian police must be "accountable to the people themselves, not to Israel or the donor community"? Palestinians must "have their basic rights"? Fascinating. And just what do the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza want?

As reported by the Pew Research Center in April 2013:

• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "favor making sharia the official law in their country."
• Among Muslims in the Palestinian territories who say sharia should be the law of the land, 84 percent "favor stoning as a punishment for adultery."
• Among Muslims in the Palestinian territories who say sharia should be the law of the land, 66 percent "favor the death penalty for converts."
• 40 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "say suicide bombing in defense of Islam is often/sometimes justified."
• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that homosexual behavior is "morally wrong."
• 44 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "honor killings" are "never justified" when a "female committed the offense."
• 87 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "completely or mostly agree that a wife must always obey her husband."
• 33 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories "say a wife should be able to divorce her husband."
• 89 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "Islam alone" leads to heaven.
• 82 percent of Muslims in the Palestinian territories say that "converting others is a religious duty."

"There can be no security for Israel if Palestinians do not have their basic rights"? Given the findings of the Pew Research Center, perhaps Amrov and Tartir should have delineated just what those basic rights are. They obviously don't apply to women or homosexuals, and a majority of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza believe that suicide bombing is often/sometimes justified, even if it deprives others of their "basic rights."

But heck, this isn't what New York Times readers want to know while gobbling their turkey and stuffing.

Fareed Zakaria, "The fantasy of Middle Eastern moderates": Fareed Again Fudges the Facts

In his latest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "The fantasy of Middle Eastern moderates," Fareed Zakaria takes the position that there are few "moderates" in the Muslim Middle East:

"For decades, U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East has been to support 'moderates.' The problem is that there are actually very few of them. The Arab world is going through a bitter, sectarian struggle that is 'carrying the Islamic world back to the Dark Ages,' said Turkish President Abdullah Gul. In these circumstances, moderates either become extremists or they lose out in the brutal power struggles of the day. Look at Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Libya and the Palestinian territories."

Zakaria makes a point of ignoring Tunisia and the semi-autonomous Kurdish enclave of Iraq.

But then Zakaria takes his argument one step further and claims that Israel has prevented Mahmoud Abbas, currently in his tenth year of a four-year term of office as president of the Palestinian Authority, from holding new elections:

"In the Palestinian territories, Mahmoud Abbas, who heads the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, is indeed a moderate. But notice that the Israeli government and the West have happily postponed elections in the West Bank year after year — because they know full well who would win. Moderates don’t do well in an atmosphere of despair and war."

Although Abbas and friends have indeed feared that new elections on the West Bank would not fare well for Fatah, where has anyone ever claimed that Israel prevented Abbas from holding these elections or has postponed these elections?

As was reported by Ynet back in 2010:

"Palestinian local elections scheduled to be held in the West Bank on July 17 have been postponed indefinitely, officials said on Thursday. Hamas Islamists, who seized control of the Gaza Strip from Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas in 2007, had already said they would boycott the vote.

The Palestinian Authority said the vote was delayed so as not to compromise efforts to reconcile with Hamas, but, as Ynet reported earlier in the week, the delay is due to internal disagreement and division within Abbas' Fatah faction.

Fatah hasn’t been able to reach an agreement over the candidates for many of the municipalities and councils.

The Palestinian Central Committee failed in its efforts to reconcile the camps, and some fear Fatah's image might significantly be jeopardized over the internal rift.

Fatah also feared that Hamas supporters would back Fatah opponents. 'We are concerned that in many places, especially where Fatah is weak and divided, the Hamas will tell its supporters to vote for our opponents, which will ensure Fatah's defeat in the elections,' a PA official told Ynet a few days ago."

Or stated otherwise, Israel had no involvement in the postponement.

Once again (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/the-ongoing-zakariahiattwashington-post.html and http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/04/fred-hiatt-editorial-page-editor-of.html), it is time to seek clarifications from the management of The Washington Post.

Adania Shibli, "Separated by Israel, Palestinians are forgetting how to stand together": Distorting the Facts

In a guest Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Separated by Israel, Palestinians are forgetting how to stand together" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/separated-by-israel-palestinians-are-forgetting-how-to-stand-together/2014/08/08/ab3ab1fa-16a3-11e4-9e3b-7f2f110c6265_story.html?hpid=z3&wp_login_redirect=0), Adania Shibli, a visiting professor at Birzeit University’s Institute of Women’s Studies and Cultural Studies Department, writes:

"What used to be an open space where people could travel freely between all the Palestinian areas, and even into the Israeli areas, has been divided into four zones, with connections between them controlled by more than 500 checkpoints and roadblocks and a wall 26 feet high."

Peculiar. In fact the West Bank separation barrier, intended to keep suicide bombers out of Israel, is only 10 percent "wall," meant to prevent terrorists from shooting into Israel, and 90 percent "fence." Moreover, as of February 2014, there were only 13 West Bank checkpoints, whose use is dependent upon the security situation at any given time (http://www.idfblog.com/blog/2013/05/06/reality-check-the-truth-behind-crossings-in-judea-and-samaria/).

Apparently unbeknownst to Shibli, there is also a separation fence between the US and Mexico, to prevent Mexicans from crossing the border and seeking work. Mexicans are not trying to blow themselves up and kill innocent American civilians.

But why should the facts get in the way of Shibli's propaganda opinion piece?

Thomas Friedman, "Order vs. Disorder, Part 2": Fresh Horse Manure

In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Order vs. Disorder, Part 2" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/16/opinion/thomas-friedman-israeli-palestinian-conflict-order-disorder.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=c-column-top-span-region&region=c-column-top-span-region&WT.nav=c-column-top-span-region&_r=0), would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman provides a solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Friedman writes:

"In my view, the only way Israel can truly curtail the Hamas rocket threat is if the Palestinians of Gaza demand that the rockets stop. Sure, Israel can inflict enough pain on all of Gaza to get a cease-fire, but it never lasts. The only sustainable way to do it is by Israel partnering with moderate Palestinians in the West Bank to build a thriving state there, so Gaza Palestinians wake up every day and say to the nihilistic Hamas: 'We want what our West Bank cousins have.' The only sustainable controls are those that come from within."

Yeah, right. Unbeknownst to Tom, according to a very recent poll commissioned by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, "55% in the West Bank and 68% in Gaza, reject permanently accepting Israel’s existence and instead suggest their leaders 'work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea'" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Majority-of-Palestinians-now-oppose-two-state-solution-new-poll-finds-360489).

Israel should partner with moderate Palestinians in the West Bank? Maybe sometime in the next century, when a majority of Palestinians finally get around to accepting Israel's right to exist.

New York Times Editorial, "Four Horrific Killings": What the Times Is Not Telling Us

In an editorial entitled "Four Horrific Killings" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/opinion/can-israeli-and-palestinian-leaders-end-the-revenge-attacks.html?ref=opinion), subtitled "Can Israeli and Palestinian Leaders End the Revenge Attacks?," The New York Times addresses the recent murders of four teenagers - three Israelis and one Palestinian. The Times concludes:

"Despite the pain and anger, there have been gestures of compassion and understanding. Mr. Khdeir’s grieving father made an appeal for 'both sides to stop the bloodshed.' On Sunday, the uncle of Naftali Fraenkel offered his condolences in a phone call with Mr. Khdeir’s father. President Shimon Peres and Reuven Rivlin, who is succeeding Mr. Peres later this month, wrote in a joint essay in Yedioth Ahronoth, an Israeli newspaper, that there would be no cover-up in the investigation of Mr. Khdeir’s murder and called for an end to incitement on both sides.

These deaths should cause the two communities to think again about the need for a permanent peace, but the loss of four young men may not be motivation enough."

What isn't the Times telling us? I'm no fan of Netanyahu, but as acknowledged even by Al Arabiya News (http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2014/07/07/Netanyahu-calls-father-of-slain-Palestinian-teen-.html), the Israeli prime minister called the family of the Palestinian victim to express his profound sorrow. The Times makes no mention of this phone call.

In a statement issued by his office, Netanyahu also declared:

"I would like to express my outrage and that of the citizens of Israel over the reprehensible murder of your son.

We acted immediately to apprehend the murderers. We will bring them to trial and they will be dealt with to the fullest extent of the law.

We denounce all brutal behavior. The murder of your son is abhorrent and cannot be countenanced by any human being."

The Times refers to Netanyahu's "days of near silence" prior to this denunciation. It doesn't occur to the Times that Israel first needed to find the killers, which was done swiftly and efficiently.

Query: Where were the denunciations by Arab leaders, other than that of Abbas, of the murders of the Israeli teenagers? (For that matter, why did the EU take so long in denouncing the murder of the Israeli boys?)

Hamas? The Times editorial acknowledges that "Israelis have long had to cope with Hamas’s violence, including a recent increase in rocket attacks from Gaza." A "recent increase" in rocket fire? In fact, some 100 rockets have been fired from Gaza at Israeli civilian targets in the past 24 hours.

Why does Hamas target Israeli civilian targets? The answer is to be found in its charter, which calls for the murder of all Jews, not just Israelis.

The New York Times has in the past been keen on vilifying Netanyahu, but there is an inordinate difference between his conduct relating to the murders and that of Hamas.

David Ignatius, "Why the Mideast peace process is in tatters": A Flagrant Falsehood

How low can David Ignatius go?

In a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Why the Mideast peace process is in tatters" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-why-the-mideast-peace-process-is-in-tatters/2014/05/15/c8345e78-dc5b-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?hpid=z3), Ignatius declares (my emphasis in red):

"The issue of Israeli settlements humiliated the Palestinian negotiators and poisoned the talks, according to statements by U.S. negotiators. When Israel announced 700 new settlements in early April, before the April 29 deadline for the talks, 'Poof, that was sort of the moment,' Kerry told a Senate panel. Warned Indyk at a gathering of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, 'Rampant settlement activity — especially in the midst of negotiations — doesn’t just undermine Palestinian trust in the purpose of the negotiations; it can undermine Israel’s Jewish future.'"

Israel "announced 700 new settlements in early April"? Oh really? As the basis for his contention, Ignatius links to a Haaretz article entitled "While Kerry tries to clinch deal, Israel issues 700 tenders beyond Green Line" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/david-ignatius-why-the-mideast-peace-process-is-in-tatters/2014/05/15/c8345e78-dc5b-11e3-8009-71de85b9c527_story.html?hpid=z3) by Nir Hasson and Barak Ravid, which informs us (my emphasis in red):

"The Israel Lands Authority published a tender for 708 residential units in Gilo on Tuesday, just hours after reports that a deal with the U.S. on a settlement freeze for spy Jonathan Pollard's release was close to being sealed."

Yes, there is an enormous difference between "settlements" and "residential units," i.e. apartments.


Moreover, as observed by The Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), (http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_print=1&x_context=2&x_outlet=33&x_article=2679):

"The 708 housing units in question are all located in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, and Palestinians do not claim Gilo should be part of their future state. Although the Jerusalem neighborhood is located over the Green Line, in previous rounds of negotiations, such as in Camp David, and again in the 2008 Olmert talks, it was never under consideration to transfer Gilo to the Palestinian Authority."

As to the Kerry/Indyk contention, parroted by Ignatius, that "Israeli settlements humiliated the Palestinian negotiators and poisoned the talks," Elliott Abrams and Uri Sadot observed by in a recent Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Israel gets no credit from Obama for a year of moderate settlement construction" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/israel-gets-no-credit-from-obama-for-a-year-of-moderate-settlement-construction/2014/03/13/d2ee1b12-aab8-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_story.html):

"Israel built 2,534 housing units last year in the West Bank. Of these, about a quarter (694) were in two major blocs near Jerusalem, Giv’at Ze’ev and Betar Illit, and 537 were in two other major blocs, Modiin Illit and Ma’ale Adumim, also near Jerusalem. These four, which will remain part of Israel, account for half of last year’s construction. They are not isolated outposts but instead are towns with populations in the tens of thousands, near the Green Line, as the 1949 armistice line and 1967 border are known.

The critical figure to monitor is the number of Israeli houses built outside such blocs in areas intended for the future state of Palestine. What the CBS data tell us on that question is that only 908 units were built last year in Israeli townships of 10,000 residents or fewer. And most of those units were built in settlement towns that are part of the major blocs. Units built in areas that would become part of Palestine number in the hundreds — and likely in the low hundreds. Given that about 90,000 Israelis live in the West Bank outside the blocs, that is approximately the rate of natural growth. So much for [President Obama's] claim of 'aggressive construction.'"

Will Ignatius issue any sort of retraction? Let's wait and see.

[Yes, WaPo issued a correction: "An earlier version of this column incorrectly reported that Israel announced 700 new settlements in April. Israel announced 700 new settlement apartments last month. The following version has been updated."]

New York Times Editorial, "Israel’s Choice": More Delusional Hatred of Israel

A few days ago, The Washington Post stated in the first sentence of an editorial entitled "President Obama’s foreign policy is based on fantasy" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/president-obamas-foreign-policy-is-based-on-fantasy/2014/03/02/c7854436-a238-11e3-a5fa-55f0c77bf39c_story.html?hpid=z6):

"FOR FIVE YEARS, President Obama has led a foreign policy based more on how he thinks the world should operate than on reality."

Indeed, the emperor has no clothes, but this did not prevent The New York Times, i.e. the semi-official organ of the Obama administration, from again lambasting Israel in an editorial entitled "Israel's Choice" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/opinion/israels-choice.html?hpw&rref=opinion).

Entirely in keeping with Obama's recent warning to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu that time for a peace agreement is running out (see: http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-03-02/obama-to-israel-time-is-running-out), today's Times editorial declares:

"In Washington this week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel sounded two different notes about peace negotiations with the Palestinians, which are nearing a critical juncture. In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the pro-Israel lobby, he enthusiastically advocated a peace agreement as a means to improve Israel’s ties with its Arab neighbors and 'catapult the region forward' on issues like health, energy and education.

But at other moments, a more familiar skepticism was apparent. He demanded that Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state with 'no excuses, no delays.' In response, a senior Palestinian official, Nabil Shaath, accused Mr. Netanyahu of putting an end to peace talks because Palestinians have already rejected that designation. (Palestinians recognize Israel as a state, but not as a Jewish state because they believe that that would undercut the rights of Palestinian refugees.) And, on Monday, at the White House, Mr. Netanyahu asserted that while Israel has worked hard to advance peace, the Palestinians have not.

. . . .

In remarkably blunt comments, Mr. Obama said that he had not heard a persuasive case for how Israel survives both as a democracy and a Jewish state absent a negotiated two-state solution, since in Israel and the West Bank 'there are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on.' He also warned that given Israel’s aggressive settlement construction — 2,534 housing units were begun in 2013 compared with 1,133 the previous year — Palestinians may soon decide that a contiguous state is impossible and America’s ability to help manage the consequences will be limited.

. . . .

In his Aipac speech, Mr. Netanyahu declared, 'I’m prepared to make a historic peace with our Palestinian neighbors.' But, really, what other just and durable choice does he have? What is his long-term answer for Israel, if not a two-state solution?"

Netanyahu of course has regularly voiced his support for a two-state solution. For example, as reported by Arutz Sheva last April (http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/167201#.UxgQsZtWHcs):

"Speaking during a reception for foreign diplomats in honor of Israel’s Independence Day, Netanyahu said, 'We are committed to our aspiration for peace, a peace that will be based on the principle of two states for two peoples, a Jewish state alongside a demilitarized Palestinian state.

'But in order for the peace to last it must be anchored in security,' he added. 'The State of Israel must be able to defend itself by itself; its security will be a main component of any future peace agreement.'"

Is Netanyahu's demand for security extreme? Israel unilaterally evacuated Gaza in 2005, resulting in a blizzard of Palestinian rockets and missiles aimed at towns and cities in southern Israel and several costly military operations intended to quell the attacks.

The editorial appears to portray Netanyahu's demand for recognition of Israel as a Jewish state as unreasonable, given acceptance by the Times of the Palestinian claim that such recognition would undercut the rights of Palestinian refugees. But why should this be the case? The new Palestinian state would be free to accept Palestinian refugees from Jordan (once comprising 77% of the Palestinian Mandate and where Palestinians amount to some 70% of the population), Syria and Lebanon. If it is demanded that Israel accept these refugees, this would end the negotiations.

Needless to say, the Times fails to acknowledge that Israel, which is approximately the size of New Jersey, already provided a home for some 600,000 Jewish refugees from the Muslim Middle East without any compensation or restitution.

More settlement construction on the West Bank? Most of the settlers live in areas which will be retained by Israel as part of a land swap agreement providing for a new Palestinian state. Moreover, as acknowledged by Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, Israeli settlements comprise only some 1.1% of the West Bank (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/erekat-olmert-offered-palestinians-territorial-equivalent-of-west-bank-1.393484).

What other just and durable choice does Netanyahu have other than to agree to terms demanded by Obama with the unequivocal backing of The New York Times? The answer is simple: Without ironclad guarantees of no future terror attacks emanating from the West Bank, Israel is simply better off biding its time. Moreover, such guarantees begin with Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

By the way, from the text of UN General Assembly Resolution 181, (Palestine Partition Plan), November 29, 1947, which created Israel (my emphasis in red):

"PLAN OF PARTITION WITH ECONOMIC UNION

Part I. - Future Constitution and Government of Palestine

A. TERMINATION OF MANDATE, PARTITION AND INDEPENDENCE


1.The Mandate for Palestine shall terminate as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.

2.The armed forces of the mandatory Power shall be progressively withdrawn from Palestine, the withdrawal to be completed as soon as possible but in any case not later than 1 August 1948.
The mandatory Power shall advise the Commission, as far in advance as possible, of its intention to terminate the mandate and to evacuate each area. The mandatory Power shall use its best endeavours to ensure that an area situated in the territory of the Jewish State, including a seaport and hinterland adequate to provide facilities for a substantial immigration, shall be evacuated at the earliest possible date and in any event not later than 1 February 1948.

3.Independent Arab and Jewish States and the Special International Regime for the City of Jerusalem, set forth in Part III of this Plan, shall come into existence in Palestine two months after the evacuation of the armed forces of the mandatory Power has been completed but in any case not later than 1 October 1948. The boundaries of the Arab State, the Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem shall be as described in Parts II and III below.

4.The period between the adoption by the General Assembly of its recommendation on the question of Palestine and the establishment of the independence of the Arab and Jewish States shall be a transitional period."

New York Times Editorial, "Shortsighted Thinking on Israeli Settlements": How About First Providing All of the Facts

In an editorial entitled "Shortsighted Thinking on Israeli Settlements" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/opinion/shortsighted-thinking-on-israeli-settlements.html?_r=0), The New York Times takes the position:

"Why further complicate these already complicated negotiations three days before they start? And why add to the abundant distrust that already divides the two sides after nearly two decades of failed peace efforts? Mr. Kerry’s timetable may be overoptimistic, but no two-state solution can ever be reached if Israel expands its settlements on territory that will eventually become part of a Palestinian state. True, they can be removed, as they were when Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza in 2005. But every increase in the settlement population expands the already politically powerful block of settler voters who will resist removal."

However, the Times editorial does not say where this new housing is planned. As reported by The Jerusalem Post (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Israel-announces-tenders-for-new-settlement-homes-in-West-Bank-322690):

"According to the ministry, 793 of the new homes will be in Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem. It includes 400 new units in Gilo, 210 in Har Homa and 183 in Pisgat Ze’ev.

In addition it plans to publish tenders for 394 new homes in West Bank settlement blocs that Israeli believes it will retain in any final status agreement with the Palestinians.

This includes 117 new homes in Ariel, 149 in Efrat, 92 in Ma’aleh Adumim and 36 in Betar Illit."

In short, the new housing is planned for areas which will be retained by Israel pursuant to the peace plans, involving land swaps, proposed in the past by Israeli prime ministers Barak and Olmert.

And if settlements will need to be removed as part of an all-encompassing peace with the Palestinians, Israel will do so, as was done in 2005 - as acknowledged by the Times - in Gaza.

You see, the Palestinians refuse to have any Jews living in their new nation, yet it is Israel that is forever being condemned as "apartheid."

Meanwhile, observe the plans of Bishara Shlayan, an Israeli Christian Arab from Nazareth, to build "a new Arab Christian settlement, open to all, in the West Bank" (see: http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/New-pro-Israel-Arab-party-says-EU-boycott-counterproductive-322864).

A new Christian settlement, albeit Arab Christian, in the West Bank? Do you think there is any chance that Fatah and Hamas will be open to such a proposal?

Not a snowball's chance in hell.

New York Times Editorial, "‘I Speak to You as a Friend ...’": The Times Wears Its Ignorance on Its Sleeve

In an editorial entitled "‘I Speak to You as a Friend ...’" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/opinion/i-speak-to-you-as-a-friend.html?_r=0), The New York Times declares:

"Will Mr. Obama also take the risks that will be needed to be a credible mediator and nudge the parties forward? His new secretary of state, John Kerry, is eager to begin and will be in Israel this weekend, but will he have the space to conduct real diplomacy? And is there a sense of urgency on anyone’s part? In recent years, Israel has built so many settlements that the options for finding a two-state solution are dwindling."

Apparently unbeknownst to the editorial board of The Times, built-up settlement area comprises less than two percent of the West Bank, but why should facts get in the way of their opinions?

New York Times Editorial, "Mr. Romney Stumps in Israel": How Low Can You Go?

I don't want to waste too much time on the vindictive New York Times editorial, "Mr. Romney Stumps in Israel" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/opinion/mitt-romney-stumps-in-israel.html). However, note the following trash talk from the Times:

"Mr. Romney did American interests no favors when he praised Israeli economic growth while ignoring the challenges Palestinians face living under Israeli rule in the West Bank and Gaza."

And all this while I was under the impression that Israel evacuated Gaza in its entirety in 2005. Yes, I know, there is a maritime blockade owing to ongoing rocket and missile fire from Gaza into southern Israel, but Gaza is not under Israeli rule. Moreover, Gaza shares a border with Egypt, and this border and Egypt are not controlled by Israel.

Palestinians live under Israeli rule in the West Bank? Yes, there are still some Israeli roadblocks, and there are also the settlements, which occupy less than two percent of its total area, but the Palestinians also have their own elected officials. Or should I say, they have elected officials, such as Mahmoud Abbas, whose term of office as president expired in January 2009, but who refuses to hold new elections.

The Times goes on to say:

"Iran’s nuclear ambitions are a threat to Israel, the United States, its Arab neighbors and its own people. But there should be no illusions about the steep costs and limited returns of any attack on Iran’s nuclear complex."

Query: What will be the costs to Israel, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the US if Iran acquires a nuclear weapon? More or less than the "limited returns" of an attack on Iran's nuclear weapons development facilities?

Also, according to the Times:

"For good measure, [Romney] insulted the Palestinians by declaring that cultural differences — not decades under Israeli occupation — are the reason Israelis are more successful economically."

Needless to say, the editorial board of the Times didn't consider "honor killings" perpetrated by Palestinians against female family members (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/19/palestinian-woman-aya-bar_n_864430.html). I wonder to what extent such killings and discrimination against women affect the Palestinian economy. Would honest mention of this "cultural difference" have also insulted Palestinians?

But why should the editorial board of the Times entertain such cockeyed questions, particularly given their cast-iron partisanship?

Thomas Friedman, "The Bin Laden Decade": What Tom Forgets to Say

Today, in his New York Times op-ed entitled "The Bin Laden Decade" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/01/opinion/01friedman.html?hp), Thomas Friedman, who is now said to be advising Obama (see: http://www.tnr.com/article/tel-aviv-journal/88563/obama-middle-east-zakaria-friedman-israel), claims that Osama bin Laden "did a number" on the Arab states, America and Israel,

"all of whom have deeper holes than ever to dig out of thanks to the Bin Laden decade, 2001 to 2011, and all of whom have less political authority than ever to make the hard decisions needed to get out of the holes."

Friedman blames the Arabs for failing over the past decade to address economic development, population growth and education. Friedman blames George W. Bush for a tax cut, Medicare prescription drug entitlement and two wars, all of which the U.S. could not afford. Friedman blames Israel for expanding West Bank settlements and destroying Israel as a Jewish democracy.

However, Friedman conveniently forgets that Obama has been President of the United States during the past two and a half years.

Observing that "Washington basically gave the Arab dictators a free pass to tighten their vise grip on their people," Friedman fails to remember that in his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, Obama excused the Arab states from implementing democratic reforms:

"I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

It skips Friedman's mind that Obama has failed to extricate the U.S. from a costly, pointless war in Afghanistan, and has even deepened U.S. involvement.

While blaming Israel for expanding West Bank settlements, Friedman fails to observe that in 2005, Israel undertook a unilateral evacuation of Gaza, which was followed by a hailstorm of missiles and rockets from Gaza directed at southern Israeli communities.

Friedman forgets that during that same bin Laden decade, Israeli Prime Minister Olmert offered Abbas an independent Palestinian state based upon the 1967 lines with land swaps, but this proposal was categorically rejected by Abbas. Does Netanyahu want to hold onto the West Bank with its 2.4 million Palestinians, as suggested by Friedman? No way, but like most Israelis, he is also unwilling to permit the return of Palestinian suicide bombings (also characteristic of the "bin Laden decade") or rocket fire from the West Bank into Tel Aviv, Haifa, Netanya and Jerusalem. Remember that Israel is only nine miles wide at its waist.

Friedman concludes:

"For all these reasons, I find myself asking the same question in Cairo, Washington and Jerusalem: 'Who will tell the people?'"

I suppose Friedman thinks that he is the chosen one. Thanks, but no thanks, Tom.

Fatah Condemns Itamar Killings While Dedicating a Square in the Name of the Coastal Road Massacre Leader

Hamas in Gaza is labeling the Itamar killings of three sleeping children and their parents a "heroic operation" (http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=211849). I apologize for shocking the sensibilities of any of my readership, and I hope there are no children who read this blog, but for those capable of withstanding the horror of viewing graphic pictures of these tragic murders, see http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/142846. What monster could possibly perpetrate such an act?

Palestinian President Abbas is now denouncing the killings as "despicable, immoral, and inhuman", but on Sunday Abbas's Fatah faction dedicated a town square in El-Bireh after Dalal al-Mughrabi, the leader of the 1978 Coastal Road Massacre.

The Coastal Road Massacre? On March 11, 1978, 11 Fatah terrorists landed near Ma’agan Michael. After killing Gail Rubin, an American nature photographer, they hijacked a passing taxi and drove south toward Tel Aviv. Stopping a northbound bus, they turned it around and began shooting passing cars.

Stopping another bus and taking additional hostages, they were halted at the Glilot Junction north of Tel Aviv, where a battle ensued. As the ultimate result of this barbarity, 37 Israelis and one American lost their lives, including 13 children, and 71 were wounded. (See: http://www.jpost.com/Features/InThespotlight/Article.aspx?id=211632)

Make no mistake about it: Abbas is saying one thing for the consumption of Washington, while doing something altogether else to please the Palestinian street and save his own skin.

New York Times Editorial "President Abbas and Peace Talks" Reveals Astonishing Naiveté

In an editorial in today's New York Times entitled "President Abbas and Peace Talks", it is claimed:

"But if Mr. Abbas is not at the table, there is no serious way of testing Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions and whether there is any real chance of peacefully achieving a Palestinian state."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/11/opinion/11wed1.html?hp

It never occurred to the author of this editorial, who is swift to label Netanyahu a "master manipulator", that Abbas is not interested in testing Netanyahu's intentions. As Abbas stated in May 2009 to Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post:

"'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.'"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/28/AR2009052803614.html

Unacknowledged by the author of this editorial is the current murderous enmity between Fatah, rulers of the West Bank, and Hamas, rulers of Gaza, which prevents Abbas from reaching any agreement involving Gaza. Satisfied with 8% GDP growth, security collaboration with Israel against Hamas, and only 14 remaining Israeli checkpoints, Abbas is currently loathe to take steps which could jeopardize Fatah's dominion over the West Bank.

Remarkably, the author of this editorial also ignores Israeli Prime Minister Olmert's 2008 offer, which was predictably rejected by Abbas, to swap Israeli territory for settlement blocs and to provide a safe passage corridor between the West Bank and Gaza.

Abbas is not standing on principle. Deathly afraid of Hamas, he has good reason to avoid talks with Israel, which could undermine his regime.