NYT Set Up Obama's Speech by Pitting 'Unyielding' Netanyahu vs. 'Reasonable' Palestinians
President Obama’s much-hyped speech Thursday on the Middle East called for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians and endorsing Israel’s pre-1967 borders as the starting point for the negotiations. The New York Times’s lead story Thursday morning by Helene Cooper and Ethan Bronner, "Focus On Obama As Tensions Soar Across Mideast," set the table by sharpening the focus on Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s "unyielding" recalcitrance as the main "stumbling blocks" to negotiations.
Mr. Obama, who is set to address Americans -- and, more significantly, Muslims around the world -- from the State Department on Thursday morning, may yet have something surprising up his sleeve. One administration official said that there remained debate about whether Mr. Obama would formally endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders as the starting point for negotiations over a Palestinian state, a move that would send an oratorical signal that the United States expected Israel to make concessions.
Times reporting from Jerusalem is often hostile toward the conservative security-conscious Netanyahu, while whitewashing the terrorist origin of the Palestinian militants of Hamas, and there were traces of that on Thursday’s report from Washington.
Mr. Netanyahu, aides say, is planning to tell Mr. Obama that Israel wants to keep a military presence along the Jordan River and sovereignty over Jerusalem and the settlement blocs -- three major stumbling blocks for the Palestinians -- but that it would be willing to negotiate away the rest of the West Bank, more territory than Mr. Netanyahu has been willing to specify in the past. He has one condition -- the Palestinian government cannot include Hamas. Mr. Netanyahu knows that the Palestinians will find this condition unacceptable, particularly since Fatah, the main Palestinian movement, just signed a unity pact with Hamas. But since the United States labels Hamas as terrorists, Mr. Netanyahu is betting that he will appear more forthcoming than ever.
Is Hamas merely "labeled" terrorist, or is it undeniably a terrorist group? An ad from the Anti-Defamation League in Thursday’s Times notes Hamas "uses classic anti-Semitism to justify the elimination of Israel," pointing to the Hamas Charter, which reads in part: "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad."
As usual, the Times portrayed Israel and Netanyahu as the "unyielding" force that must change its attitude, while claiming "diplomatic momentum" was on the side of the Palestinians (as if the functionally anti-Israel United Nations has played no role in that).
Diplomatic momentum has been with the Palestinians for several years, with their leadership and requests viewed as reasonable and Mr. Netanyahu as unyielding. Some in Israel believe now is the time to seize the moment with a bold initiative, but they are not in power. "The coming days are a final chance to stop or at least to slow Israel’s diplomatic decline," Dov Weissglas, who was bureau chief for Ariel Sharon when he was prime minister, wrote in Wednesday’s Yediot Aharonot newspaper. He wants a more far-reaching offer from Mr. Netanyahu that would give up East Jerusalem and not require that Israel keep soldiers along the Jordan.
The Times conflated the recent Arab spring with the historical Muslim animus toward Israel:
Many, including some within the Obama administration, think the talks with Hamas need not be a deal breaker and could even be useful over the long run. Finally, the upheavals in the Arab world are turning the mood ever more against Israel, making American and European leaders eager to pressure it for concessions.
So far Mr. Obama has not used the moment to push Israel. But Palestinians have been absorbing lessons and audacity from pro-democracy demonstrators across the Arab world. They have learned the value of unarmed mass movements organized on Facebook and other social media.
The Times whitewashed the attempted invasion by Palestinians on three fronts on Sunday as merely an "approach" of Israel’s borders.
Last Sunday, thousands of Palestinians approached Israel’s borders to claim, at least symbolically, their right of return on the anniversary of Israel’s founding. Israeli troops opened fire and more than a dozen people were killed. While the numbers of protesters were relatively small, there are Arabic social media pages calling for such marches to the fences to occur with greater frequency, especially as September approaches and the Palestinian Authority seeks membership in the United Nations. If tens of thousands of Palestinians were to march, Israel would find itself in great difficulty.
Sunday’s lead story accurately noted that hundreds of Palestinians tried "to force their way across" the Lebanese border.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
These reasonable Palestinians
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:07pm.
are they the same Palestinians that fire about 8000 missiles a year into Israel from Gaza that was given to them in the name of peace. Those Palestinians? You freakin' moron!
Reasonable?
Submitted by jon_torlin on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:19pm.
Those Palestinians will never be considered reasonable so long as the Hamas Charter states that Israel must be destroyed.
-Jon
Yep, Netanyahu is
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:43pm.
Yep, Netanyahu is "unyielding."
If he would just agree to the Israelis' driving themselves into the sea, they could save a lot of time wasted fighting against the Palesitinians' "reasonable" attempts to do just that.
We should give California to
Submitted by stratman on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 6:24pm.
We should give California to the Israelis as their new State and let the Arabs run their new land grab into rubble per usual. Then the religion of peace can get back to killing each other, also per usual.
I'm sure all the Lefties in California whining how the Jews should give up vital security property will be all for giving up their own property for peace.
(sarcasm/off)
I'd be quite happy to have Israelis as my neighbor. Stereotypical Leftist Californian... not so much. (Not talking about Noel!)
Reasonable
Submitted by Zepppo on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 12:59pm.
Reasonable means refusing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Reasonable is praising terrorism and calling Israelis dogs and worse even on children's programs. Netanyaho is unreasonable because he won't just lie down and die like all good Jews should.
The real question I have is why so many American Jews are Democrats. Do they feel like this atitude is OK that so many democrats hold to?
Netanyahu~news conference
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 2:13pm.
Netanyahu did an amazing, eloquent job of standing Israel's ground. Beautifully and wisely done.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Why Should Israel Give Away Land Back To Palestinians?
Submitted by Conservator on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 2:20pm.
In April 2004, President George W. Bush wrote in a letter to then-Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon that negotiations should be “in accordance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 242,” which calls for “the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent [1967] conflict.”
"...But in the same letter, Bush also said a full return to 1967 lines was unrealistic “in light of new realities on the ground.” The 2004 declaration angered Palestinian refugees and those living inside the occupied territories, as it effectively rejected the Palestinians’ claim of a right to return to homes inside Israel..."
Netanyahu balks as Obama speech invokes ’67 borders - May 20, 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/netanyahu-balks-as-obama-speech-invokes-67-borders/2011/05/19/AFhi0R7G_story.html?hpid=z1
As a result of Bush's letter, Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon proposed the Israel's unilateral disengagement plan. It was adopted by the government on June 6, 2004 and enacted in August 2005, to evict all Israelis from the Gaza Strip and from four settlements in the northern West Bank.
Those Israeli citizens who refused to accept government compensation packages and voluntarily vacate their homes prior to the August 15, 2005 deadline, were evicted by Israeli security forces over a period of several days. The eviction of all residents, demolition of the residential buildings and evacuation of associated security personnel from the Gaza Strip was completed by September 12, 2005. The eviction and dismantlement of the four settlements in the northern West Bank was completed ten days later.
In giving this land back, what have the Palestinians done to forward peace with Israel - nothing but hostile acts and the call to wipe Israel off the map.
Yet what truly disappointed me today, was not Obama's speech (Israel can care for itself). It was reading the following article at CNSNews.com:
Sen. Lindsey Graham Blames Lack of Support for His Immigration Position on Fox News - May 20, 2011
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/graham-blames-fox-news-making-it-difficu
Obama is President because the Republican Party has far too many RINOS. After attacking the safety of our closet ally in the ME, this is what concerns Graham today? I never vote on the Republican line (I prefer the Conservative line). But today, after 35 years of being a registered Republican, I'm reregistering as a Conservative.
I think Qassam was a better rocket name than Reasonable.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 2:23pm.
"Two Reasonables were fired from Gaza, one of them hitting an Israeli school bus."
Sounds kinda whiney. But maybe they did some local market testing.
Israel don't negotiate with
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 2:24pm.
Israel don't negotiate with terrorists! Too much already. Zero need to negotiate. Throw those out who cannot be good Israeli citizens & dump them across the Jordan border with payment for their condemned property. That is the logical and intended place for them to go: "majority of whose population has always been Palestinian." They can remain under the king. I would not make them a separate state as they clearly cannot be trusted.
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2011/03/04/will_jordan_become_a_p...
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
The NYT Is Nuts
Submitted by HardRightTurn on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 3:05pm.
And pathological to boot. George Soros must be the shadow Editor In Chief.
To more fully comprehend the Left, one must read “Leftism As Psychopathy” by John Ray, M.A., Ph.D. Caution, it might scare you a little bit.
http://jonjayray.tripod.com/psycho.html
Rock Solid
Submitted by m1xram on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 3:09pm.
Obama has stated that our support of Israel's security is "rock solid". Yet, he has halted all weapon shipments to Israel. Obama's actions cry out against his verbal lies.
The opposite of Left is Freedom.
More like shifting sand...
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:17am.
than rock solid.
Let me re-phrase that: Obama's support of Israel is (at best) like shifting sand. What I hope Netanyahu knows is that the support for Israel of many, many Americans IS rock solid. Israel deserves a more reliable best friend...2012, people!
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
This is a 1967 map (post June) Israel gave back tons of land
Submitted by upcountrywater on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 3:53pm.
Maybe Bibi, can explain to duhbama, how well that went. Israel 1967
You Didn't Build That.
Reuters describes Netanyahu as right-wing Israeli leader
Submitted by Rush Fan on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 4:09pm.
in an article titled Israel's Netanyahu rejects Obama proposal on borders, but, you guessed it, fails to describe President Obama as left-wing U.S. President.
Obama's call fbr a return to
Submitted by Cooltom on Fri, 05/20/2011 - 7:22pm.
Obama's call fbr a return to the pre-1967 borders is pure hokum. It is obvious that the real desire of the Muslims AND Obama is a return to the pre-1948 borders -- the non-existence of Israel.
I am awaiting for the call from Mexico to return to the pre-1836 borders, the French calling for the 1803 borders, and the Russians for the pre-1867 borders.
The Reuters article made sure
Submitted by deerjerkydave on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 2:00am.
The Reuters article made sure to label Netanyahu as a "right-winger" but had no such labels for Obummer. No label suggests to the reader that Obummer is fair, reasonable, and moderate. Holy biased reporting Batman!
------------------------
"The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite. -James MadisonWhat I always find so stunning
Submitted by tinydancer on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 3:43am.
What I always find so stunning, is how so many NY Jews can pray at the alter of the NYT? They need to pull their heads out. Soon.
Obama! America does not share your delusion,
Submitted by ACLUSUX on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 8:57am.
How any Christian could vote for Obama is unthinkable. Opposition will be voiced at every pulpit in America tomorrow.
Israel is not the bad guy. You lied on the world stage. You will be unemployed soon.
How you ask? It was assumed.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Sat, 05/21/2011 - 9:32am.
People blindly followed the MSM, it was assumed that the Chairman, despite his Arabic name and Muslim background, would be a God fearing Christian with America's best interests in mind.
Who would expect this guy to be the turncoat, a Manchurian candidate who was actually going to(and succeeding so far) destroy this country from within? However, there were plenty of warning signals prior to that, so the fault lies with the Americans that voted for him.
If anyone knew history and knew how Socialism and Communism works, as well as really paid attention to the information that was coming out about his associates, they would know for a fact like a lot of us did in the years leading up to now that this guy was no good at all. That came out unedited between him and Joe the Plumber.
I had run into tons of people, and these are the ones I mentioned above that made assumptions based on ignorance, who said "well, maybe he's not that bad" or "give him a chance." That last one, I said "hell no, I don't want to give him a chance, I already know what's going to happen!" I would get accused of being racist or ignorant(say what??) or someone who didn't have any hope(yeah, I had that word tossed at me).
So there you have it, that's how it happened, why people voted for him.
And here we are today, on the fast track to hell.
-Jon