Carter's Visit to Gaza Unabashedly Cast Symptathetically

"Carter, in Gaza, Urges Hamas to Meet Demands"; by Taghreed El-Khodary and Isabel Kershner; A6

Although Jews on the Left, such as Jon Stuart Leibowitz, are quick to state their discomfort with pro-Israel Christians, they are welcoming to Jimmy Carter, whose Christianity is at the heart of his destructive efforts to legitimize Hamas.

In their report on Jimmy C's visit to Gaza, El-Khoidary and Kershner mislead readers. Early on, they remark on Ismail Haniya’s “conciliatory tone," evidenced by advocacy for "the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.” Yet three paragraphs later, they concede, “Hamas leaders have said they will never recognize Israel, and will offer only a long-term truce, not a full-fledged peace treaty, in return for a Palestinian state.” Had these bits of information been placed together, as they could have been, the reporters could not have cast the tone as conciliatory.

Israel is cast villainously, for it “continues to impose a punishing economic blockade.” Unsurprisingly, this language is an echo of one of Jimmy’s talking points, which is a call to end Israel's blockade of Gaza.

Carter’s rhetoric is characteristically uncharitable toward the Jewish state, as he laments “the deliberate destruction that has been wreaked against [Palestinian] people” during the January Gaza War and suggests that Israelis treat them “more like animals than human beings.”

The report closes with a report from HaMoked and Gisha, two intensely ideologically-driven Israeli organizations. "Carter in Gaza...” could provide a case study in bias against Israel at NYT. Jimmy C's visit is cast in sympathetic terms, and the only Israelis who are given voice are those who are far from affirmative about the Jewish state.

Israeli PM Gives a Speech, But Kershner Focuses on the PA's Positions

"Netanyahu Backs Palestinian State, With Caveats"; By Isabel Kershner; A1

Today, on the front page, Isabel Kershner reports on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University outside Tel Aviv yesterday. Toward the middle of the article, IK editorializes, “[Netanyahu] seemed to offer little room for compromise or negotiation."

To substantiate her claim, she cites Netanyahu’s rejection of “the Palestinian demand for a right of return for refugees of the 1948 war and for their millions of descendants.” Kershner then explains why Palestinians maintain this demand without similarly explaining why Israelis reject it.

Of course, the demand is connected to Israel’s character as a Jewish state, a matter that arose repeatedly in Netanyahu’s speech. Given that, the expectation is that Kershner would connect the dots for readers. In short, Israelis reject the demand because it would compromise the Jewish character of Israel. One would think that in covering a speech by an Israeli leader that the goal would be to convey the Israeli position in depth. By taking the occasion to explain the Palestinian position, however, Kershner demonstrates a subtle bias toward the Palestinian Authority.

IK is at her best when she allows events - and Israelis - to speak for themselves. At the article's conclusion, Kershner prints a fact that NYT is loathe to confront - "[The speech] largely expressed the consensus in Israel." And, as President Shimon Peres says, it was "true and courageous.”

Lieberman May Improve Israeli-Russian Relations, as American Support Wanes

"Israel's Foreign Minister Cozies Up to Moscow"; By Clifford J. Levy; WK1

Levy does a successful job of framing Israel Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's visit to Moscow in the context of the Obama administration's diplomatic overtures to the Arab and Muslim world.

The warm relations and easy flow of conversation with Russian leaders demonstrate one of the assets Lieberman brings to his position.

The report is fair, with one minor exception. Levy writes,

"With a new diplomacy-oriented administration in Washington and a new hawkish one in Jerusalem, the various parties in the region are trying to...test one another."

Contrasting "diplomacy-oriented" with "hawkish" evidences a bias. For example, a bias in the opposite direction would characterize the Obama administration as pacifist or dovish. Simply conveying that the American administration is diplomacy-oriented and the Israeli administration is not would be most appropriate.

Letter-Writers Embrace Tuesday's Opinion Piece on Egyptian Jews

"The Uprooted: A Sad Mideast Legacy"; Letters; A30

Of the six letters published in response to Tuesday’s opinion piece by Andre Aciman, which recounted the expulsion of Jews from Egypt, five are overwhelmingly supportive. A Moroccan and a Libyan Jew as well as an Armenian Christian confirm the horror endured by non-Muslim, non-Arab people in the last several decades in Muslim lands.

Letter-writers make several important points:

• “Vibrant Christian communities, including Armenians and Greeks, also suffered from discrimination in Arab countries, leading many to flee. A paucity of cultural diversity has arguably contributed to the Arab radicalism seen today,” writes Stephan Pechdimaldji.
• “Israel always welcomed Jewish refugees into its society. In stark contrast, Palestinians have been kept in refugee camps throughout the Arab world, pawns in the long battle with Israel,” writes Edwin Andrews.
• “One cannot forget that nearly half the population of Israel is made up of refugees from Arab countries and their descendants,” write Vivienne Roumani-Denn
and Maurice Roumani.

Why is Israel "Wary"?

"U.S. Envoy Reassures and Presses a Wary Israel"
A14, Wednesday 6/10/09
By Isabel Kershner

If Obama’s current Mideast peace push is making Israel "wary," Times readers may find it difficult to understand the real reasons why.

Summarizing the U.S.-Israel dispute over settlements, Kershner accurately cites the U.S. position as “an unequivocal halt to all settlement activity”. She then imprecisely cites the Israeli position as “no new settlements, but building within existing ones should be allowed.”

In actuality, the Israeli position speaks of continued building within existing settlement blocs, not simply in existing settlements. The distinction is key since it has been widely agreed – by the U.S. and even by the Palestinian Authority (PA) – that these blocs will be kept by Israel in any future agreement. There are many existing settlements, outside Israel’s West Bank barrier, in which the Israeli government does not plan to build.

Kershner further makes the Israeli position seem hawkish by needlessly stating that it comes from Israel’s “hawkish” prime minister. Several paragraphs later she correctly fashions the Israeli position on settlements as one of consensus:

“While the Israeli leadership does not speak in one voice on all issues, there has been a certain uniformity regarding the settlements.”

Kershner states that Mitchell’s reference to Israel as a Jewish state was a “nod to Netanyahu, who says that Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state is essential for any peace deal.”

Stating this is "a nod to Netanyahu" diminishes the importance of this fundamental requirement for peace. The refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is not simply a PA tactic to keep alive the right of return, as Kershner posits, but one to deny the legitimacy of Jewish statehood, thereby perpetuating the conflict.

Recently commenting on this Palestinian position, cabinet minister Moshe Ya’alon stated that “in the (Palestinian) view, one state should be the Palestinian state and the national identity of the other state should remain undefined, so that in the future it can become a Palestinian state as well.”

Kershner writes of the Palestinian refusal: they say “it would contradict the Palestinian refugees’ demand for a right of return and that it is detrimental to the status of Israel’s Arab citizens”.

First, it is widely understood that the right of return is anathema to the two-state vision; Second, the PA recently, and again, retracted its offer to accept Jewish citizens in a new Palestinian state, rendering hollow their concern for minority rights in Israel. While Kershner was fair in citing the Palestinian position, she should have reported on how that position measures up to reality.

Revealingly, reference to the deep PA-Hamas rift – considered almost an afterthought – is left for the article’s end. Juxtaposed next to the President’s recent call for a Palestinian state within two years (unreported), this reality would make all the more understandable Israel’s wariness of, and Netanyahu’s reluctance to publicly endorse, a Palestinian state.

NYT Publishes Opinion Critical of the President

"The Exodus Obama Forgot to Mention"; By Andre Aciman; A27


Andre Aciman pens an incisive critique of President Obama’s speech, which has been almost exclusively lauded in the American media. In doing so, Aciman also brings attention to the forgotten refugees, the Jews of Muslim lands who have been expelled since the advent of Israel.

As to why the President omitted these particular Jews’ plight, Aciman offers readers three possibilities: “[Barack Obama] either forgot, or just didn’t know, or just thought it wasn’t expedient or appropriate for this venue.”

The writer’s focus is on the Egyptian Jews, but a larger inference can be drawn from his writing about the Conflict. One of the factors that perpetuate it is the collective effort to forget crimes perpetrated against Jews by Muslims.

“It is a shame that [Obama] did not remind the Egyptians in the audience of [the expulsion and looting of Jews], because...their memory banks have been conveniently expunged of deadweight and guilt. They have no recollections of Jews.”

In part, as a result of this amnesia, Israel's peace with Egypt is cold and much of Hamas’ weaponry in Gaza comes through Egyptian territory.

Tough Love for Israel Has Arrived

"Israel's Premier Promises Major Peace Plan"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's refusal to "respect understandings" reached between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former President George W Bush under the 2003 Road Map is not a sign of goodwill. These "understandings" are connected to Jewish communities on the Jordan River's west bank, or settlements, and the issue of natural growth.

Rather than regard Clinton's inflexibility toward an American ally as uncharacteristic, Isabel Kershner treats it matter-of-factly, as this is the tough love toward the Jewish state for which she and others at NYT have been waiting.

Beginning with Equivalences, Bronner Ultimately Undermines Them

"The Divisions Among Israeli and Palestinians"; By Ethan Bronner; WK1

An article plagued by equivalences between Israeli settlers and Palestinian terrorists quietly gives the nod to Palestinians as the ones who have held up an agreement between the two.

There are "fierce and explosive divisions within each society between those who favor a deal and those who oppose one,” begins EB. The following paragraphs seeks to substantiate this claim.

Then suddenly, in the eleventh paragraph, EB betrays his equivalence, writing, “Among Palestinians, the problem is worse.”

At this point, he allows Gerald Steinberg, chairman of the political science department of Bar Ilan University, to undermine his treasured equivalence. “Mr. Steinberg rejected what he called an 'artificial symmetry' between the peace opponents in Israel and among the Palestinians,” reports EB.

Israelis are skeptical about peace because of practical concerns; whereas, most Palestinians are ideologically opposed to negotiating an agreement with Israel, Steinberg argues.

When at the conclusion of his report, EB tries to shift the focus back to Israel and the “schism” inside it, the reader hardly notices. The truth about Palestinian disfunction and intransigence has seeped through into his consciousness, holding sway.

Bronner Mischaracterizes Fourth Geneva in Article

"Obama Pins Mideast Hope on Limiting Settlements"; By Ethan Bronner; A1

Ethan Bronner starts to present a balanced view of the conflict between Israel and the United States - initiated by President Obama - over settlement growth in "Obama Pins..."

He quotes Yossi Beilin, Oslo's architect, but counters him with Efraim Inbar of the Begin-Sadat Institute and Sarah Honig of the Jerusalem Post.

As the articles nears it end, however, balance is upset and a slant sets in.

"The Fourth Geneva Convention forbids a country to settle its civilians in areas conquered militarily. Israel set up military outposts that turned into civilian settlements."

The Fourth Geneva prevents the forcible transfer of civilians to areas conquered militarily; it does not prevent citizens who settle of their own volition, as Jews have in Judea & Samaria on the Jordan River's west bank.

"Palestinians were enraged [by settlement construction]. Some resorted to terrorism, leading some Israelis to argue that settlements were a vital front line to protect the heartland."

The causal link between settlement construction and Palestinian terrorism is abhorrent. Palestinian terrorists, usually sent by Hamas, have been against the existence of Israel, in general, not just settlement construction. To suggest that terrorism is a direct result of settlements is a fabrication.

In Cairo, Obama Lays Himself Bare Before World Jewry

1. "Addressing Muslims, Obama Pushes Mideast Peace"; By Jeff Zeleny and Alan Cowell; A1
   
2. "The Cairo Speech"; Editorial; A22
   

When he campaigned for the presidency last year, the fairest assessment that could be made about Barack Obama’s view of Israel was that it was an unknown. Campaign statements were concise, even staid, rather than revelatory. Yesterday’s speech in Cairo provides the best material thus far for American Jews to understand how Obama will work with Israel to achieve security & recognition.

As Zeleny & Cowell report, Obama spent a great deal of effort identifying and empathizing with Palestinians, “to get through to his audience," as Paul Wolfkowitz said. The content of Obama’s speech will be analyzed for weeks to come, but, here, a point must be made about how Z&C report on it. 

The speech “infuriated some Israelis and American backers of Israel because they saw the speech as elevating the Palestinians to equal status.” This phrasing is ill and strikes me as – perhaps purposely – misleading. Readers may think Israelis resent that Palestinians, their fellow humans, are being cast as equals. Rather, the issue is the equality Obama presumes between a polity, Israel, and a proto-polity, “Palestine,” as he referred to it. 

Indeed, the use of the word "Palestine" – not, as NYT mentions, a “reference to a future Palestinian state" as President George W. Bush employed it in March 2002 – is problematic; but it is also simply odd. The President of the United States is the great conveyor of the world’s reality, and “Palestine” is a politicized, propagandistic, fantastical, and, most importantly, non-geopolitical term.

The editorial board could hardly conceal its glee about "The Cairo Speech," but, most interestingly, it didn’t mention this oh-so-provocative word. Even NYT, which seeks to be academic, knows that its usage is problematic, and its lack of acknowledgement of Obama’s usage - even as it reminds readers that “words are important" - was a subtle non-endorsement.

Livni Hits Homer on the Democratic Process in Times Op-ed

"Democracy's Price of Admission," A23 (Op-ed), by Tzipi Livni

In a rare New York Times op-ed that is favorable to Israel, leader of the Kadima Party Tzipi Livni surprisingly offers her views on those groups that should participate in democratic elections and more importantly, on those that should not.

She based her piece off of Obama's assertion in his Cairo speech that "Elections alone do not make true democracy." Livni then cogently argues that Islamist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah have "sought participation in the democratic process not to forsake their violent agenda but to advance it. For them, electoral participation was merely a way to gain legitimacy — not an opportunity to change. Some of these groups were better seen as “one-time democrats” determined to use the democratic system against itself." She furthers her point by saying, "We cannot offer international legitimacy for radical groups and then simply hope that elections and governance will take care of the rest."

In the end, Livni proposes the compelling idea of " a universal code for participation in democratic elections" which would "include requiring every party running for office to renounce violence, pursue its aims by peaceful means and commit to binding laws and international agreements." It should be self-evident, for example, that Hezbollah's maintenance of its own militia is contradictory to democratic principles.

Livni perceptively notes that democracy "is about responsibilities as well as rights." If Obama is serious about democracy in the Middle East, he will heed Livni's comments and demand that Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Islamist gruops disarm in order to participate in the democratic process.

Settlement Freeze or Brain Freeze? Obama's Singular Focus on the Settlement Issue

"Israelis Say Bush Agreed to West Bank Growth"; By Ethan Bronner; A6

In an important factual article, Times reporter Ethan Bronner airs Israeli complaints that President Obama failed to acknowledge “clear understandings with the Bush administration that allowed Israel to build West Bank settlement housing within certain guidelines while still publicly claiming to honor a settlement ‘freeze.’”

Through this piece, it appears that the Bush definition of a settlement freeze entailed no new construction of settlements but permitted construction within the “existing community outline” of major settlement blocs that were expected to stay under Israeli sovereignty after a final agreement. The difficulty seems to be that these community outlines were never specifically outlined.

On the other hand, the Obama definition of a settlement freeze is absolutely no construction of any kind within all existing settlements in the West Bank. This includes the “natural growth” of the settlements, as any town or city has a natural population expansion. Bronner fails to note that the Israeli consensus is that this is a preposterous and onerous demand given that 1) certain settlement blocs are expected to be part of Israel 2) settlements are not the principal impediment to peace, so why place it under a magnifying glass while ignoring other key issues?

And another key question is what the legal status of Bush’s 2004 letter to then Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (who let us not forget is still somehow alive!) which stated: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.”

To Obama, it apparently means nothing. In his world, Palestinian grievances far outweigh Israeli concerns (maybe if Israel yelled loud enough to they would be grievances too), so the only just solution must be Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. Unfortunately, Palestinian grievances aren’t so limited. Can Obama see that?

Obama and the Settlers' Children

"Israel and U.S. Can't Close Split on Settlements"
A1, Tuesday 6/2/09
By Isabel Kershner

****************

"Obama Talks of Being 'Honest' With Israel"
A8, Tuesday, 6/2/09
By Helene Cooper

****************

This is more of the near daily coverage of the U.S.-Israel "split" over settlements.

Kershner implies that "building within the confines of established settlements" is "expanding settlements" and then goes on to cite the population growth of Jews living in settlements in the West Bank, without specifying whether they live in blocs. The distinction is key, since the settlement blocs would not preclude the viability of a Palestinian state.

Kershner, citing "many critics," takes to task "the notion that settlers' children have an absolute right to continue living in their parents' settlement." She quotes activist Dror Etkes, who embarassingly takes literal the word "children". "A newborn does not need a house," says Etkes. "It is a game the Israeli government is playing."

"Settlers' children" more likely refers to a young couple wanting to live close to their family. With housing in some larger settlements in short supply, they would be forced to live elsewhere. This is not only hardly a "game," but it is not a fringe notion. As Netanyahu recently stated, but which the Times is loathe to even explore, "the will of the public" is behind preserving the major settlement blocs.

********

Meanwhile, Helene Cooper follows up her article just yesterday with new material from President Obama. "Part of being a good friend is being honest," explains the President.

There is some positive in Obama's interview with the BBC in which he states "I think we have not seen a set of potential gestures from other Arab states, or from the Palestinians, that might deal with some Israeli concerns." Nevertheless, Arab states have remained defiant that overtures to Israel will not precede a finalized peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians, which is nowhere near to happening.

The President should understand that to be honest with a friend, you have to fully understand your friend's predicament.

Obsession with Settlements Plagues Cooper's Reporting

"Weighing Tactics on Israeli Settlements"; By Helene Cooper; A7

In a region with perhaps the worst Freedom House ratings measuring democracy, liberalism, and human rights, Helene Cooper preposterously focuses on Israeli settlements as she forecasts Barack’s trip to the Middle East this week.

By putting the issue at the center of today’s article, NYT is subtly pressuring Barack to show American “ire” with Israel. 

Speaking of economic and political interaction between Israel and Saudi Arabia, Cooper describes the prospect as “a tall order for the Arab kingdom, which has, thus far, eschewed taking much of a role that could be seen as acknowledging Israel.” 

For a moment, readers must reflect on this point, one which demonstrates the unrelenting intransigence of Saudi Arabia. Having considered it, one can hardly believe that Barack's stance on Israeli settlements is the key factor to Middle East peace. 

Settlements Red Herring Deepens

"Obama Calls for Swift Move Toward Mideast Peace Talks"
A10, Friday 5/29/09,
By Helene Cooper

President Barack Obama, May 28, 2009:

“I mentioned to President Abbas in a frank exchange that it was very important to continue to make progress in reducing the incitement and anti-Israel sentiments that are sometimes expressed in schools and mosques and in the public square, because all those things are impediments to peace.”

That all or at least part of this admonishment from President Obama was not referenced in this article is testament to the misguided obsession the New York Times has with Israeli settlements. This article was the lone piece dedicated to the Obama-Abbas meeting and the absence of these remarks by the President is simply unacceptable.

There is also something perverse in the admonishment itself, if one can even call it that. The Palestinian Authority (PA) should “continue” to make progress in reducing anti-Israel and anti-Jewish incitement, that are "sometimes" expressed? What specific progress has the PA made? Has the Times been monitoring this? What does it mean that Israel is systematically demonized by its supposed peace partners?

Perhaps this incitement, and the associated anti-Israel terrorism, helps explain Israel’s reluctance to expel West Bank Jews from their homes and demolish their communities – especially if such actions are meant to make room for a peaceful Palestinian state.

As the prominent Arab-Israeli journalist, Khaled Abu Toameh recently conveyed at a forum in Canada, “Israel's West Bank settlements are no obstacle; they’re a red herring: a minor issue that Jerusalem will easily handle—based on its readiness to dismantle its settlements in the past—when the moment is right. That time is not now, and is not coming soon.”

Blinded by a dogma that overlooks this unfortunate reality, the Times obsessively focuses on the red herring of settlements, and in so doing, misleads the public regarding the issues that matter.

Times Cheerleads for US Pressure on Israel; Israeli Consensus: Settlement Freeze Stupid

"Israeli Settlement Growth Must Stop, Clinton Says,"
A10, by Mark Landler & Isabel Kershner

Although nominally a neutral news article, one can sense the Times’ excitement over continuing U.S. rhetorical pressure on Israel to halt all settlement growth. Secretary of State Clinton said, “He [Obama] wants to see a stop to settlements — not some settlements, not outposts, not ‘natural growth’ exceptions.” Reporters Landler and Kershner note that Clinton's remarks are "the administration's strongest to date on the matter."

In support of the White House’s position, the Times marches out the same old tired “facts” and experts.

• “Almost 300,000 Israelis now live in settlements in the West Bank, excluding East Jerusalem, among a Palestinian population of some 2.5 million. Much of the world considers the 120 or so settlements a violation of international law.”
  
  The great majority of settlers live adjacent to the 1949 Armistice Lines, within Israel’s security barrier. Regarding international law, the world may interpret it one way, but that doesn’t mean it’s correct. The Times ignores UN Security Council Resolution 242, which does not demand Israel withdraw from the entire West Bank, as it would imperil Israel’s basic security.

• “Expert” Aaron David Miller, leading (Jewish) proponent of US pressure on Israel: “She [Clinton] is stripping away whatever nuance, or whatever fig leaf, that would have allowed a deeply ideological government to make a settlement deal that is politically acceptable at home. They’ve concluded, ‘We’re going to force a change in behavior.’”
  
  The Times frequently use Miller for an expert quote, even though he simply repeats his same stance: more pressure on Israel will bring about peace. It’s troubling that the Times does not cite an analyst with an opposing view, leading to the clear deduction of NYT bias.

• “Mr. Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have said repeatedly that they see no point in resuming stalled peace negotiations without an absolute settlement freeze.”
  
  How exactly did this prevent the Palestinian leadership from accepting Israel’s Ehud Barak’s final status offer in 2000 at Camp David or Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008?

Ultimately though, the idea of a US-pressured settlement freeze, focusing on the issue of natural growth (since Israel doesn’t build new settlements or expand the territory of existing settlements), doesn’t really make any sense. If the US is attempting to address Palestinian grievances, this will fail, since Palestinians continue to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish State and demand an implementation of the right of return. And what will happen when the Palestinian Authority continues to reject Israel’s peace overtures? The Israeli concern is that such a freeze will be indefinite since the PA is not rushing to make a peace agreement.

If the US intention is to induce Arab regimes to support American efforts against Iran, this will also fail as the last thing these weak regimes wish to do is to produce more internal discontent.

Secondly, there is the matter of practicality. To the Times' credit, they quote Defense Minister Ehud Barak in which he “gave a hypothetical example of a family of four that originally moved into a two-room home in a settlement: ‘Now there are six children. Should they be allowed to build another room or not? Ninety-five percent of people will tell you it cannot be that someone in the world honestly thinks an agreement with the Palestinians will stand or fall over this.’”

Main point being, it is a consensus issue in Israel that a settlement freeze is impractical, wrong, and will achieve very little to nothing in relation to the Palestinians. How about the Times reports on that?

Not when it stands by and acts as an active cheerleader of US pressure on Israel.

Iran Is at the Center of Nuclear Activity This Week

"Israel Ties 2 Nations to Iran's Uranium"; AP; Tuesday, May 26; A7

"North Korea Nuclear Question"; Letters; A26

The problem of nuclear proliferation is at the forefront of news so far this week. As yesterday’s report from the AP indicates, Venezuela and Bolivia are aiding Iran in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. 

Iran’s nuclear program arises again today, as letter-writers respond to an article about North Korea’s recent nuclear test. Both countries continue to snub international efforts to curb their militaristic and nuclear activities.

“The only country with the courage to take military action against Iran is Israel,” says Paul Schoenbaum in a letter.

Times Continues to Honor Israel's Harshest National Critics

"Amos Elon, Israeli Author, Dies at 82,"
B8 (Obituary), by Ethan Bronner

The Times continues to honor Israel’s harshest national critics with an obituary for Israeli essayist and author Amos Elon. The article is very similar to an August 2008 obituary for Abie Nathan, an eccentric peace activist but marginal figure in Israeli history.

Regarding Elon, Bronner writes he “examined his society’s flaws and myths.” In fact, Elon typically went far beyond that in his hyper-critique of his own country. He is quoted as saying that his country is a “disappointment.” He truly had nothing positive to say about Israel.

To get a real sense of the loathing Elon had for his homeland, one must read his sensationalist 2004 interview with Ha’aretz’s Ari Shavit in which he shares:

I think that Zionism has exhausted itself. Precisely because it accomplished its aims. If the Zionism of today isn't a success story, it's the fault of the Zionists. It's because of the religio-zation and Likudization of Zionism and because what was supposed to be a state-of-the-Jews has become a Jewish state.

In response, Shavit challenges him:

Or maybe you just can't identify with a state that isn't secular-European. I want to remind you that in your classic book, "The Israelis," there are no Sephardim or religious people or traditional people. The Israel you loved was the secular-European Israel. Its others didn't really interest you.

And there is the essence of a man profoundly disconnected with his country, who was always prepared to demean it. As Shavit notes, Elon “is known throughout the world but has become nearly anonymous here [in Israel].” Forgotten in Israel, The Times resurrects the man’s memory in order to further its own mission of heralding the failures of the Jewish State.

It's a match made in heaven.

Times' Letters Scrape Bottom

"Israelis, Iranians and Existential Threats,"
A18, Letters to the Editor

In this case, two out of three is bad.

Two of three letters published, in response to Jeffrey Goldberg's recent "Amalek" piece, reflect a disturbing pattern at the Times: letters critical of Israel – no matter how inane or shallow – receive space on its opinion page.

One letter observes that Israel is in a “precarious” state due to “its continuing reliance on military power to solve political problems.” But are Israel’s conflicts with Hezbollah and Hamas diplomatically resolvable? Both militant movements continue to make clear that their problem is Israel’s existence – not its policies.

And does Israel “depend on its nuclear umbrella to dominate the Muslim Middle East," as this same writer absurdly contends, or does Israel depend on its nuclear umbrella to serve as a deterrent to fanatics clearly intent on destroying it?

Israel’s "failure to negotiate”, the writer continues, will do Israel in. “Nuclear parity with Iran,” may even be to Israel’s benefit as it “might shock Netanyahu into finally accepting peace — meaning a state for a people whose existence is truly precarious, the Palestinians.”

First, Israel doesn't need to be threatened with nuclear war to accept Palestinian statehood. They've accepted it, and negotiated for it, many times, only to be rebuffed by a Palestinian movement uninterested in ending the conflict.

Second, far from precarious, the Palestinians’ existence is on quite a strong footing. Palestinian health standards have dramatically increased under Israeli rule; its population has boomed; nearly all Palestinians in the territories live under PA control; they receive unprecedented international attention, backing and funding; all this for a people's movement that does not simply want its own state, but the demise of another.

What's most disturbing here is that the Times would take heed of the idea that Iranian nukes could lead to peace.

In the second letter, Israel may be threatened, but it needn't worry, since it has nukes and a first-rate army. In the third letter, Israel is not even threatened. It just “decimates the infrastructure of Lebanon, the civilians of Gaza, and now threatens Iran.” There’s no Hezbollah, Hamas or radical regime in Tehran controlling both.

“Instead of pre-emptive strikes, a mature, powerful country would engage in diplomacy, mutual agreements and safeguards to assure security, prosperity and peace.” If only Israel had such options.

These letters do not simply offer an alternative view, or criticism, of Israel's policies. They offer nothing constructive, serving merely as anti-Israel counterpoints. One wonders what interesting critiques of Goldberg’s piece were left out because they didn’t fit the Times’ view of the conflict – in which threats to a mighty Israel are supposed, and Arab states' grievances are rooted in concern for justice.

Unfortunately, the letters the Times chooses to publish on Arab-Israeli peace continue to scrape the bottom of the public discourse barrel.

Goldberg's Review of Morris' New Book Is a Hit

"No Common Ground"; By Jeffrey Goldberg; NYTBR; 12

Reading Jeffrey Goldberg’s review of Benny Morris’ One State, Two States is a welcome relief considering the anti-Israel bias of the majority of books and reviewers published in NYTBR. 

Muhammad Dahlan’s statement about Fatah’s refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state is one of the few occasions where this matter is brought before NYT’s reading public. And as Goldberg points out, it substantiates Morris’ argument in One State, Two States that Arab rejectionism is the cause for continued strife between Israel and her neighbors.

The turning point for Morris that allowed him to reach this conclusion was Yasir Arafat’s rejection of Ehud Barak’s offer of a state in December 1999.

One problem is outstanding in this review, and it comes from the reviewer when he pushes to hard to find fault with Morris’ narrative. The author, argues Goldberg, “ignores the possibility that recent Israeli mistakes have marginalized” moderate Palestinians. The mistake Goldberg has in mind is Ariel Sharon’s unilateral withdrawal of 2005.

Apparently, the reviewer subscribes to the myth that Israel's Gaza withdrawal was a missed opportunity for coordination with the Palestinian Authority. This is a myth, as Goldberg ought to know, because the PA can never be seen as coming to an interim agreement with Israel. Only a final status agreement can be had. That is why it rebuffed Sharon's offers for coordination.

That Goldberg suggests otherwise weakens the review and this reader’s opinion of the reviewer. After all, the best part of the piece is the opening, which demonstrates that rejectionism is part of the PA – the supposedly moderate peace partner – but the ending undermines the opening, as it resuscitates the notion that the PA wants to peacefully end the Conflict.

More Misreading of PA, Arab and Muslim Views of Israel

"Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu"
A20, Saturday 5/23/09,
Editorial

While the Times’ latest editorial shows some fresh sensibility on Iran, it is victim to the tired dogma that informs its view of Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

Obama is urged to “come up with a strategy for constraining Iran’s nuclear program — with compelling incentives or far more dissuasive sanctions. There isn’t a lot of time for either.” Israel is “right that time is clearly on Iran’s side.” Obama should be “using the time now to prepare Europe and Russia for the necessity of much tougher sanctions if (diplomacy) fails.”

This is a start. Yet what would’ve been truly welcome is an admonishment that U.S. coalition building on Iran must not wait for, or be linked to, progress in peace talks between Israel and its neighbors – a linkage in which the President, unfortunately, believes. The Arab states, knowing, that at the end of the day, Iran will be stopped by someone else, will exploit the linkage to apply pressure on Israel while pussyfooting on the peace process.

On the two-state solution, the Times incredibly, like clockwork, urges only Israel to “embrace” the two-state solution. Lest the Times appear soft on the Palestinian Authority (PA), it writes that the PA “must do more to prove that they are capable of self-government.” In the Times' logic, promoting coexistence, let alone refraining from demonizing Israel, is not one of these responsibilities.

The rejection of Israel that underpins so much of Fatah’s politics is truly revealing when listening to the multitude of supposedly moderate calls from the region that acceptance of Israel will come when the Palestinian issue is solved. To paraphrase Ahmadinejad, "we'll accept whatever the Palestinians accept".

This also reveals the danger in the linkage the Times promotes – “working credibly and even-handedly on a peace deal is central to repairing (US) relations with the Muslim world.

Contrary to perception, a peace deal will inflame the Muslim world. This isn't because the Muslim world hates peace, but because Israel, however truncated, is seen as a colonial project. Many dishonestly, and honestly, see Muslims living there as being treated inferior to Jews. No matter the “bolstering of Abbas,” he and the PLO (ironically, itself rejecting and undermining Israel) will continue to be seen as Israel’s lackeys.

This reality makes all the more wild The Times' next idea: Obama’s June 4 Cairo speech should be used as an opportunity, not only to preach harmony with the Muslim world, but to “do better” than George W. Bush’s endorsement of a Palestinian state. What is better than that endorsement? Endorsing it to the masses in Cairo or just making good on the endorsement? Spell it out.

The Times believes that since he's a popular U.S. President, with a Muslim background, Obama will be able promote peace in the Middle East. Thought of like this, it makes sense. Thought of as promoting enduring colonialism in the heart of the Middle East, it makes less sense. Obama is already widely seen – at least on the issue of Palestine – as a Zionist tool. Okay, so try.

The problem is not that the Times sees Obama's message of accepting Israel (if it'll even be that explicit) making a difference. The problem is that the Times sees it making enough of a difference to force a policy change toward Israel. This is beyond hope. It's naivete.

The Times' dogma on the Arab-Israeli conflict misreads an undeniably monolithic Arab and Muslim view of Israel. This paper needs to stops projecting and to start tackling the realities of that region's politics.

With Lebanese Elections Looming, Times Instead Focuses on Spies for Israel

In the fourth article on Lebanese citizens spying for Israel in the past month, Times reporter Robert Worth finally gives some context to the issue, though fails in other regards.

Worth importantly notes that “It is no secret that Israel has long maintained intelligence agents” in Lebanon (so why so many articles on the issue?). The difference being now that the Lebanese government, in greater coordination with Hezbollah, has actually succeeded in capturing more of these alleged spies, “including a retired general, several security officials and a deputy mayor.”

One must then ask, what is motivating these Lebanese to spy for Israel? Worth argues, without any sort of corroboration, that “most seem to have been motivated by the promise of money.” He doesn’t address any sort of other motivations though, such as opposition to Hezbollah, which would like to create an Islamic Republic modeled off of Iran’s regime in Lebanon.

Many Lebanese are deeply opposed to such an outcome. Hezbollah would logically be the focus of Israel’s spying efforts. One would assume that many of those that are spying for Israel have no love for Hezbollah (otherwise they probably wouldn’t spy on them), but Worth doesn’t wish to go there.

Worth also is compelled to use contentious descriptions to Israel’s detriment, referring to the Second Lebanon War as Israel’s “punishing bombing campaign.” Of course, he makes no reference of Hezbollah’s use of human shields by embedding itself deep within the civilian population.

Ultimately, it is surprising that Worth devotes such a lengthy article to this marginal issue when greater analysis is needed for the upcoming Lebanese general elections on June 7, 2009. The results of this election will have great implications for both Lebanon and Israel, as well as the entire region.

The Times instead places the magnifying glass on Israel, which is par for the course.

As De Facto Sovereign, Hamas Responsible for Attacks Against Israel

"Israel: 2 Palestinian Militants Are Killed," A8 (World Briefing), by The Associated Press

A more explanatory title would be desired, detailing that these militants were directly engaged in hostile activity, but at least the brief piece gets the context correct.

This was a further act of unbridled Palestinian aggression as operatives from Islamic Jihad and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine attempted to maim Israeli soldiers.

It is important to note that Hamas possesses "effective control" of Gaza, but is unwilling to prevent attacks against Israel, because, well, it supports "armed struggle" against Israel. As the de facto sovereign of Gaza, Hamas bears primary responsibility for these attacks.

Israel's Extremes are Laid Before the Reader in Strong Relief

"Israel Removes an Illegal Settler Outpost in the West Bank"; By Isabel Kershner; A6

Two statements stand out in Isabel Kershner's article, "Israel Removes...," one from former outpost resident Daniel Landesberg, the other from Peace Now's Yariv Oppenheimer. Both expose the weaknesses of thought and argument from those at Israel's extremes.

Landesberg exaggeratedly suggests that Israel will do whatever the US wants. Oppenheimer is dismissive of the dismantling because Maoz Esther is not "significant."

Landesberg's comment is typical of those affiliated with religious Zionist Gush Emunim movementfor whom Israel can never act affirmatively enough. There is even a strain of anti-Americanism in this movement. In contrast, for Oppenheimer and those in Peace Now, America must effectively parent the ever recalcitrant son, Israel, and Israeli independence is regarded negatively. In rebuttal to Oppenheimer's statement, the destruction of people's homes and enforcement of the law are always significant matters.

From the vantage point of the middle ground, which is solid, firm, sensible, and moderate, settlements are not definitively illegal, and illegal outposts, constructed without the approval of the Israeli government, should be dismantled.

Coverage of the Failed Bombing Attacks Continues

1. "In Ex-Convicts' Bomb Case, Steps and Missteps, on Tape"; By Michael Wilson; A1, A24
   
2. "Suspects in Terror Bombing Plot: Drug Arrests and Prison Conversions"; By Al Baker; A24
   
3. "Interfaith Understanding Wins Out, and a Plot Loses"; By Clyde Haberman; A25
   
4. "In Riverdale, New Anxieties, and a Resolve to Carry On"; By Lisa W. Foderaro; A25
   

Regrettably, unavoidably, one must note how poisonous anti Semitism has infected the black community during the last several decades and how that impacted the perpetrators of Wednesday night's failed attack. According to the accounts published, these were broken men who found vigor in the prospect of murdering Jews.

Clyde Haberman’s piece on interfaith dialogue is the cheesiest. Its equivalences are regrettable, as it gives the impression that Jews and Muslims feel equally threatened, one from the other. Threats from Muslims toward Jews are real, evidenced by attacks across the globe. Threats from Jews toward Muslims, while not non-existent, are a fraction of the former.

Placing attention on adolescents’ efforts to reach interfaith understanding indirectly exempts adults from that responsibility. Although the youth work is important and foundational, a much more important and difficult conversation needs to take place between Muslim and Jewish adults, wherein Muslim anti-Semitism is laid bare.

Fatah's Resistance to Israel Remains Non-Issue

"Palestinians Try to Prune Branches of Core Party"
A14, Thursday 5/21/09, Memo from Ramallah
By Ethan Bronner
****************
"Vote Fatah (or Hamas)"
A35, Thursday, 5/21/09, Op-Ed
By Khalil Shikaki
****************

In two feature pieces on the Palestinian Authority (PA), and its ruling Fatah party, the Times’ Ethan Bronner and op-ed contributor Khalil Shikaki offer a measure of critical analysis on several issues, yet overlook perhaps the most relevant: the PA’s failure to genuinely accept Israel's existence.

Bronner appropriately writes that Fatah “has the organizational transparency of a Soviet republic,” and has been painfully slow to reform. Shikaki writes more of a defense of the PA. In an incomplete, or simply dishonest, assessment, he writes that the PA has not just restored order, but defeated the terrorists. In reality, the IDF is preventing a Hamas coup in the West Bank and the PA is nowhere close to assuming total control of security.

Shikaki then laments that the PA hasn’t been “able to translate its recent accomplishments into political gains in its negotiations with Israel”. Shikaki seems unable to translate the news from just months ago, when the PA again turned down a desperate Israeli government offering statehood.

Shikaki writes that Israel’s failure to “dismantle its widespread network of checkpoints in the West Bank” is a violation of the road map, and puts the PA in a tough position with its citizens – who expect results. In Shikaki’s reality, where Israel has no role in preventing attacks and the PA has “disarmed nationalist and Islamist groups,” Israel’s checkpoints will come across to readers as simply a slap in the face of its Palestinian peace partners.

On the issue of peace with Israel, Bronner offers no penetrating analysis and fails to connect the dots from otherwise revealing quotes.

"Fatah used to be a movement focused on armed struggle,” Bronner cites a Palestinian activist. Yes, but Abbas has spoken of keeping armed struggle as an option down the road. And of course, dropping armed struggle doesn't preclude the adoption of political struggle as a way to ensure the conflict continues, a strategy that's an obvious facet of Palestinian politics. This deception must be called out, especially by such an important and reputable newspaper.

Bronner writes of Palestinians' hopes for a new leader, “Marwan Barghouti, who is in an Israeli prison,” failing to mention the dastardly crimes of which he was convicted. Bronner writes also of a future Fatah that “could also be more militant,” without exploring this problematic prospect. He then cites a PA official who says that if political discourse to pursue “national goals” (not "peace with Israel") “doesn’t work in a certain time frame we should resort to other options, including armed resistance.” There's no follow-up on this disturbing point. (emphasis mine)

Meanwhile, Shikaki openly cites some of his poll findings, such as the Palestinian public supporting armed attacks against Israeli civilians at its highest level in four years. Considering Fatah is doing an "impressive" job stopping these attacks, what better time for Israel to dismantle its provocative network of checkpoints.

"Many would argue," writes Shikaki, “a Hamas victory would derail the peace process. But to many Palestinians, this statement misses the point; if the Palestinians don’t speak with one voice, the peace process cannot go far.”

Palestinians could be missing the point. Peace with Israel doesn’t hinge only on speaking with one voice, but with one peaceful voice. Armed struggle (Hamas), indoctrination (Hamas and Fatah) and lawfare (Fatah) against Israel may be the voice unity produces, but this is not the voice of peace and moderation.

Struggle within Fatah is a theme throughout. In an “identity crisis" and deciding “what exactly it stands for,” Fatah is divided. However, the truly sad – and unreported – reality here is that unending violent or political resistance to Israel is a point on which all of Fatah can agree.

Syria Interested in "Process" not Peace, Netanyahu does the peace jig

In an article that really lacks any deeper the analysis, the Times reports that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu supports peace talks with Syria without preconditions. The Times doesn’t really explore whether Syria will respond in kind or has any serious commitment to peace, instead choosing to focus exclusively on Israeli actions, as if Syria doesn’t exist.

Of importance though, reporter Isabel Kershner quotes Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, who properly observes that Syrian leader “Assad is only interested in the peace process in order to get his country out of its international isolation and to remove the pressure of the international community.” This is a key point which many analysts fail to note (including the Times): Syria is interested in the “process,” not peace.

Time and again, Syria has shown that it is not prepared to make the necessary sacrifices for peace, feigning interest in a peace process so that it can reap dividends from the international community. For the Syrian regime, it is more worthwhile for Israel to be its eternal enemy and scapegoat on which to blame national and regional ills, rather than recoup the Golan Heights.

Despite Syria's clear lack of sincere attentions, Netanyahu understands he must do the tired old peace jig in order to mollify those voices that believe Israeli intransigence is the barrier to an agreement.

Who Won the Obama-Netanyahu Meeting? Who Cares!? We're Allies!

"Keeping Score on Obama vs. Netanyahu," A14, by Helene Cooper and Mark Landler

Straight from the title, the Times skews the relationship between the U.S. and Israel, writing as if the Obama-Netanyahu meeting was some sort of zero-sum game, rather than a reciprocal relationship. Need the Times be reminded that the U.S. and Israel continue to be strong allies, despite the Times frequent call for increased American pressure on Israel.

In the article, the Times creates the impression that Netanyahu “won” this round by securing from Obama a timetable for dealing with Iran, while Obama was unable to extract a settlement freeze from Netanyahu.

First of all, Obama’s declaration, “We’re not going to have talks forever,” does not really amount to much of a timetable. Does anybody believe that any administration would hold interminable talks with the unyielding regime in Iran? Secondly, was Obama’s goal to induce Israel to freeze settlement construction? His goal seemed more related to securing Netanyahu’s support for an independent Palestinian state in accordance with the Two-State Solution.

On this issue, a senior White House official contentedly comments:

The president was clear, both publicly and privately, that all parties, including the Israelis, have obligations as they relate to settlements, as they relate to Gaza, and as they relate to two states.

Another administration official importantly notes that “Mr. Obama’s timetable on Iran was not predicated on a quid pro quo from Israel.” President Obama and his staff are intelligent enough to know that Israeli concessions to the Palestinians will make dealing with Iran no easier.

So in the end, who won? Who cares!? We’re allies!

A Church Leader's Complaint, Hate Crime, and Judicial Action in Argentina

1. "Security Faulted for No-Shows at Papal Mass"; By Isabel Kershner; A14
2. "Madoff Loss Hits Art Aid for Young in Israel"; By Daniel J. Wakin; C1
   
3. "Israeli Companies Seek Global Profile"; By James Flanigan; B5
   
4. "Argentina Seeks Colombian in Attack on Jewish Center"; World Briefing; By Alexei Barrionuevo; A10
   
5. "4 Accused of Bombing Plot at Bronx Synagogues"; By Al Baker and Javier C. Hernandez; A1
   

A slough of articles connected to Israel and the Jewish people mark the pages of NYT today - from complaints by a church leader in Jerusalem to a failed bomb attack in the Bronx to a judicial action against a Columbian terrorist in Buenos Aires.

It is important to note that the church leader featured at the center of "Security Faulted..." was not part of the Vatican, as Yigal Palmor, an Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman, points out.

“The pope was caught up often in the region’s fraught politics and raw sensitivities,” writes Kershner, placing the church leader's comment in a larger framework. Last week’s reporting indicates that Israelis' sensitivities were disregarded and Palestinian grievances were attended to.

An article in the C section demonstrates that reverberations from the Madoff scandal continue in the Jewish community, as a musician's scholarship program - nastily described by Wakin as "unabashedly aimed at casting Israel in a positive light" - may not have enough funding to continue next year.

In the Business section, an article appears about Israeli companies, which avoids dragging the Conflict into the reporting - for the most part. In response to a reference to Israel as "a safe bet" by Sharona Justman, the managing director of a consulting group, reporter James Flanigan, obnoxiously writes,

"Though 'safe' is not a word often associated with the Middle East or Israel, Ms. Justman noted that through years of regional tension, the economy has grown and venture capital has continued to flow to Israel.”

Nonetheless, more articles like this need to appear in NYT's Business section.

Other good news comes from Argentina where a court is taking steps to bring to justice those who perpetrated the 1994 attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires.

Finally, the attempted attack by four Muslim American citizens on two Bronx synagogues is a painful reminder of the threat the Jewish community worldwide faces. As quoted in the article, Representative Peter T. King, Republican from Long Island, said, "There’s a real threat from homegrown terrorists and also from jailhouse converts.”

Iranian Missile Launch Heightens Importance of Obama-Netanyahu Talks

"Iran Test-Fires Missile With 1,200-Mile Range"; David E. Sanger and Nazila Fathi; A6

An Iranian missile test is the latest embarrassment to the Obama administration’s efforts to engage Iran diplomatically, as it is a signal of the Islamic Republic’s belligerence.

Reporters Sanger and Fathi suggest that the missile launch was part of President Ahamadinehad’s re-election campaign. The other candidates, readers are reminded, are more moderate than he. Being more moderate than a mad man isn’t the tallest task. Moreover, for a missile launch to occur, sanction must have been given at the highest level. As Westerners are frequently reminded, Ahmadinejad is a figurehead. Sanger and Fathi do not quote responses from the other candidates. If they really are moderate and are in disagreement with Ahmadinejad, then one would expect a public statement. One can hardly imagine an election in America where such an action would not provoke a response from the opposition.

The end of the article references the meeting earlier in the week between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, who achieved a compromise on the Iranian nuclear issue. Netanyahu supports Obama’s diplomatic efforts, and Obama has accommodated Netanyahu, declaring that the these efforts have a deadline – year’s end.

Inventing Obama's Iran Timetable

"Obama Tells Netanyahu He Has an Iran Timetable"
A12, Tuesday 5/19/09,
By Sheryl Gay Stolberg

If there was a story here about an Iran timetable, it's that Obama doesn't have one.

Netanyahu has been looking for a deadline on U.S. engagement with Iran, but came away empty from his first meeting with the President. Yet right there in the headline, the implication is that Netanyahu got from Obama what he was looking for.

Obama stated that by the end of this year, the U.S. would reassess the productivity of talks with Iran. This is the most specific Obama was on this point -- in reality and as reported in this article. Stolberg even seems to soften the headline's point when she rights in the 11th paragraph that "the exchange was the first time Mr. Obama had seemed willing to set even a general timetable for progress in talks with Iran". (emphasis mine)

It's unclear how "general" a timetable can actually be. A timetable is by definition a schedule (with more than one item), and Obama's vague reference to a year end evaluation should not be confused as one.

Stolberg makes another misstatement that Netanyahu got what he wanted. She writes "the more hawkish Mr. Netanyahu thanked Mr. Obama for keeping 'all options on the table' with respect to Iran. This is language that Mr. Obama rarely uses."

This is language that Obama rarely uses and did not use here, notwithstanding Stolberg's implication. Stolberg quotes Obama saying if diplomacy with Iran fails, he "did not intend to foreclose 'a range of steps'." The implication is that military action is part of this range. Interestingly, though, Stolberg shortened Obama's quote. The President had intoned something different when he said "we are not foreclosing a range of steps...including much stronger international sanctions." (emphasis mine)

Netanyahu may have spun what he wanted the press, and notably Iran, to hear. The Times either fell for the spin, or is set on framing the meeting as one in which Netanyahu got what he wanted.

Arab-Israelis: Holocaust Optional

"Israel: Holocaust is Denied in Survey," A12 (World Briefing), by The Associated Press

In an article that was much more deserving of a deeper analysis (rather than the mere 85 words the briefing was given), the Times reports that a University Haifa of survey found that 41% of Arab-Israelis don’t believe the Holocaust happened, up from 28% in 2006.

The survey’s director, Arab-Israeli sociologist Sammy Smooha, “thinks the increase signals a rising frustration among Arabs, who say they believe that recognizing the Holocaust gives justification to Israeli policies.”

So it’s about Arab-Israeli grievances over (Jewish-) Israeli actions? What about Arab-Israeli accountability for their radicalism? Do not Arab-Israelis have their own agency or are they simply reactionary pawns to Israel’s behavior?

The article also fails to note, among other radical postures exposed in the survey, that 12.6% of Arab-Israelis now believe that “any means, including military, should be used to improve their conditions” (up from 5.5% in 2003). Additionally, “47% of local Arabs object to having a Jewish neighbor” and 22% believe Israel has no right to exist.

What seems most disturbing though is how historical fact and truth seem to be optional for many Arab-Israelis depending on their attitudes toward Israel. However, there exists no grievance to justify the denial of historically documented fact. Truth is not discretionary.

Terrorists Use Facebook!?

"Israel Warns About Web," A5, by Reuters

Israel’s internal security agency, Shin Bet, warns that terrorist groups are using social networking sites such as “Facebook to recruit and possibly kidnap, Israeli citizens.”

There was nothing more newsworthy happening in the world? And what isn’t happening on Facebook? Wouldn’t we be more surprised if terrorist groups weren’t trying this?

Note to Times: not everything related to Israel is newsworthy.

Reporters Must Question Whether Espionage Cases Are Good for Lebanon or Hezbollah

"2 Lebanese, Suspected of Spying, Escape to Israel"; AP; A5

“2 Lebanese…” is the most recent of several articles published in the last two months about a crackdown on Lebanese who spy on behalf of Israel.

What each report has lacked is a broader analysis of how these prosecutions are connected to the ascent of Hezbollah, itself an organization alien to Lebanon. In other words, Hezbollah, which takes directives from Iran and Syria, drives the espionage charges, but no reporter has cast an ironic glance toward them. 

As the AP reports, “The arrests…appear to have singled out those suspected of gathering information about Hezbollah’s militants.” Reporters should question whether the charges are in the interest of Lebanon, a state fighting for its independence, or Hezbollah, a terrorist organization.

One could make the case that those who spy on Hezbollah are acting in a patriotic fashion. The fact that Israel backs them is not an indication that the spies are lovers of Israel but, rather, that Israel is the only force in the region that is stronger than Hezbollah.

Lastly, readers should be assured that Hezbollah-directed raids intended to gather incriminating evidence are done outside of any legal framework, reinforcing the chaotic, lawless environment in Lebanon.

Times Gleefully Hopes for Greater Pressure on Israel in One-Sided Article

"World Watches for U.S. Shift on Mideast," A16, by Helene Cooper

In a terribly tendentious article, the Times Helene Cooper anticipates a policy shift by President Obama on American-Israeli relations in favor of the Palestinians.

In support of this view, Cooper only interviews partisans for greater pressure on Israel, including Aaron David Miller, Daniel Levy, and Charles W. Freeman Jr. (It’s truly incredible that she didn’t interview anybody that disagrees with this tact.)

Charles W. Freeman Jr.? Yes, the former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia who withdrew his nomination as Director of National Intelligence earlier this year in at least part due to his derogatory remarks against those that support a robust relationship between America and Israel. Following his withdrawal, the Washington Post published a scathing editorial, lambasting him as a “conspiracy theorist” that engages in “crackpot tirades” as Freeman blamed the nefarious (Israel) “Lobby” for his failure to receive the directorial position.

In his interview for the Times article, Freeman continues to prove why he was a “poor choice” for the nomination, using the vitriolic label “skunks” to describe those that support strong American-Israeli relations. It’s amazing that the Times would choose to publish such slanderous remarks.

Notwithstanding Freeman’s inclusion in the article, it would seem that the Times wholeheartedly supports Aaron David Miller’s assertion that Obama “understand the needs and requirements of Palestinians.”

And what exactly does that mean? That the Palestinians have limited grievances that extend to settlements, checkpoints, and military occupation? If there’s anything that we should have learned from the past two decades of failed Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy, it is that Palestinian demands are not limited to specific grievances, but extend to the maximalist desire to see Israel dismantled or destroyed.

The Times continually fails to understand the deep-rooted Palestinian rejectionism of a Jewish State in the region and instead freely airs the views of those that believe American-extracted Israeli concessions will bring about peace. And if the Palestinians won’t take these concessions, the rest of the Muslim world won’t be following either.

Let the wishful thinking continue.

A Travel Article Shows Israel in Her Glory

"In Israel, History With a Whiff of Adventure"; By Nancy M. Better; Travel Section

Avoiding the pitfall of allowing the Conflict to dominate even an article in the Travel section, Nancy M. Better offers a lively, enticing account of a trip to Israel for the family. The glory of the Jewish state and the natural beauty of eretz Israel are vividly on display. More articles that illuminate the wonder of Israel - be they in the Travel, Arts, or Business sections must appear!

Bibi, Amalek and Jewish History

"Israel’s Fears, Amalek’s Arsenal"
WK14, Sunday 5/17/09,
By Op-Ed Contributor, Jeffrey Goldberg

Jeffrey Goldberg offers an interesting background on both Jewish views of "Amalek" (an existential threat successive generations of Jews have been forced to confront), and on the scholarship of Benjamin Netanyahu's father, a pre-eminent historian on Spanish Jewry. Both coincide to form an entry point into Netanyahu's thinking on Iran. Most important, Goldberg paints a more sober and thoughtful portrait of Netanyahum, departing from past Times coverage.

Iran as the new Ameluk perhaps helps explain Jewish history, its patterns, ironies and traditions, but may actually mislead those who seek a realpolitik explanation of why Israel may preemptively strike Iran. For instance, Goldberg writes that "if Iran’s nuclear program is, metaphorically, Amalek’s arsenal, then an Israeli prime minister is bound by Jewish history to seek its destruction, regardless of what his allies think." (my emphasis)

Goldberg subsequently writes that, in their conversation, "Netanyahu avoided metaphysics and biblical exegesis, but said that Iran’s desire for nuclear weapons represented a 'hinge of history.'" However, some readers may be left with the impression that abstract considerations like Jewish history and tradition, not clear-eyed self-defense and self-preservation, are what influences an Israeli prime minister.

Although not the focus of this piece, Goldberg offers a snapshot on Netanyahu's and Israel's options for peace with the Palestinians. It's a somewhat disappointing one.

"(Netanyahu) believes the Palestinians, divided and dysfunctional, their extremists firmly in the Iranian camp, are unready for compromise." While this is true, it omits a far more fundamental truth about Palestinian society and politics: if there were no Iranian camp, division nor dysfunction, the long and deep-rooted tradition of Palestinian rejectionism would still preclude compromise. This is a point too important not to make, lest readers conclude the problem is one of Palestinian unity or "extremists".

Goldberg treats Iran and the peace process as distinct, and while in reality they are, Obama is using Palestinian statehood as a political fig leaf in crafting his Iran policy. Thus, the realities of actually achieving a Palestinian state should've been given a bit more thorough attention.

Nevertheless, some myths were importantly confronted head-on by Goldberg: notably the myth of a "hard-line" Netanyahu. Goldberg notes Netanyahu "betrayed the principles of the Greater Israel movement by relinquishing part of Judaism’s second-holiest city, Hebron, to the control of Yasir Arafat."

Also noted is Israel's concern not that Iran will necessarily launch a nuclear weapon at Israel, but, as he paraphrases Netanyahu, "Iran could bring about the eventual end of Israel simply by possessing such weaponry," and terrorist groups on Israel's northern and southern borders would enjoy a "nuclear umbrella". Islamic militants around the world "would believe that this is a providential sign, that this fanaticism is on the ultimate road to triumph.”

Goldberg importantly quotes Netanyahu's lament that Iran's threats are a "monumental outrage that goes effectively unchallenged in the court of public opinion." Apart from "perfunctory condemnations...there’s no shock."

Goldberg also writes that to garner the major players (Europe, China, Russia) necessary to halt Iran's nuclear program, they need to be convinced that at stake is not only Middle East stability, but welfare of their own economies.

Goldberg should be commended for his admonitions of Netanyahu's critics. He writes, to see Netanyahu as, "at bottom, a cynic who will bluff vigorously but bend whenever he thinks it expedient or unavoidable...is to misread both the prime minister and this moment in Jewish history.

For Times, Perception is Reality

"Netanyahu to Meet Obama as U.S. Priorities Shift"
A8, Friday 5/15/09,
By Mark Landler

On both the U.S.—Israel relationship, and on Arab-Israeli peace, perception is reality for the Times.

This relationship, stated as fact, has become “unsettled”. In reality, the two country’s leaders have yet to meet and policy has not changed, no matter how many pundits and observers are unsettled.

Stated is former President George W. Bush offering “unstinting” support of Israel. This was a “hallmark” of his administration. In reality, Bush made a Palestinian state the cornerstone of U.S. policy in the region, publicly and privately urged Israel to dismantle settlements and outposts and denied the overflight rights and weapons Israel requested in dealing with Iran.

Stated are both countries having “sharply different” ways of dealing with Iran. Obama is “asking for time to pursue its diplomatic overture to Tehran; the Israelis are warning that they will not stand by while the Iranians build a nuclear bomb.” This Israeli warning doesn’t contradict Obama’s agenda. In fact, Israel has stated that it agrees with Obama about engaging Iran, but has consistently warned of Iran’s exploiting the engagement. Landler himself makes these points in subsequent paragraphs.

Martin Indyk is cited, speaking on whether Netanyahu and Obama can find common ground on Iran. “Without that, he said, it would be hard to imagine the Israeli government’s making progress on negotiations with either the Palestinians or its Arab neighbors.”

So if common ground is found on Iran, it would not be hard to imagine Israel progress on negotiations with neighbors committed to its demise. If Israel believes that Iran is a threat to its existence, General Jones feels it should pursue talks with the Palestinians. In reality, Israel has time and again pursued talks with the Palestinians, an entity that has time and again articulated its opposition to Israel’s permanence.

If only Israel lived in the reality of politicians, pundits and publishers.

Pope's Silence on Iran Still Non-Issue

"Netanyahu Asks Pope to Condemn Iran"
A6, Friday 5/15/09,
By Rachel Donadio

As this article progresses, the pope’s silence on Iran’s genocidal intentions takes a back seat to his supposed disagreement with Israel over the establishment of a Palestinian state. With this, the article reflects an unfortunate reality.

For the pope to use his moral authority to call out the glaring genocidal hatred of the Iranian regime, (hatred he has so far ignored), he is getting “entangled in politics”. Shouldn’t this be the responsibility of the pope? At the same time, it's not considered politics for the pope to be calling for a Palestinian state?

Donadio further skews reality with her description of Iran’s stated intentions towards Israel. “In the past, Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has called for Israel’s destruction, although on at least one occasion last year, he used somewhat less severe language, saying Israel would collapse. (my emphasis)

The Iranian regime’s (not just Ahmadinejad’s) call for Israel’s destruction is a frequent occurrence. Writing that Ahmadinejad has “in the past” called for Israel’s destruction, gives a false impression of moderation. Furthermore, the regime’s rhetoric forecasting Israel’s collapse in no way mitigates its own war against Israel...it's meant to enhance it.

That the Vatican has full diplomatic ties with Iran was importantly pointed out. Donadio also made the point that “Benedict has not directly spoken about Iranian statements on Israel,” yet writes “but the Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, has.” (my emphasis)

This automatic point-counterpoint is a disturbing pattern. Iran has called for Israel’s destruction, “although…” The pope hasn’t responded to this call, “but…” Since the original points weren’t sufficiently rebutted, they should’ve been left alone. Nothing needed to be added. That there may be another point of view does not necessarily warrant its inclusion.

Donadio Weakly Explains the Barrier But Continues to Take Pope to Task

"In Bethelehem, Pope Laments Israeli Wall"; By Rachel Donadio and Sharon Otterman; A12

Throughout the article, Donadio and Otterman make reference to "the separation barrier." In fact, they use "barrier" six times, thrice with the root word separate, once with the descriptive - "concrete-and-barbed-wire" - beforehand. 

Not once did D&O use the word security in connection with the barrier. In the two instances where they connected the barrier to security, they are quick to associate it with Israeli spokespeople. They explain,

"Israel began building the separation barrier in 2002, saying that it was necessary to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from reaching Israeli cities. Military officials insist that it has saved hundreds of Israeli lives."

At this point, some independent research could have been advanced to verify the claim. NYT, however, apparently desires to leave the matter open, to Israel's detriment. 

Otherwise, Donadio keeps the heat on Pope Benedict, once again returning to his speech at Yad Vashem, which was an embarrassment to the Vatican. She must be credited for reinforcing this matter before the reading public. 

Letters: It Takes Two to Make Peace, Baby (Not Just Israel)

"Letters: What Should We Ask of Israel Now?" A32

In response to the Times recent unenlightened editorial, "An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu," Glen Lewy, Chairman of the Anti-Defamation League, pens an excellent response. Lewy is exactly correct in asserting that the Times "unfairly puts too much onus on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for progress in Middle East issues."

This is a common theme throughout Times coverage of Israel. The onus is nearly always on Israel to resolve the conflict, while essentially ignoring any sort of Palestinian accountability. Commonsense would affirm that agreements can only be achieved when two parties are in accord, but the Times writes as if the Palestinians have no independent agency of their own. It is tragic that the Times, which is ostensibly a guardian of anti-racism, treats the Palestinians in a sub-human manner.

Despite publishing Lewy's great rebuttal, the Times also published a terrible letter by a Ms. Andrea Whitmore, which is greatly lacking in both intellectual content and writing ability. In the letter, she shallowly asserts that American and Israeli interests are mutually exclusive, rather than frequently in accord. She also supports the conspiratorial notion that Israel will "enmesh us in another war" (as if Israel was responsible for the invasion of Iraq).

Does such meaningless drivel really deserve to published in the "paper of record"? And if it does, how does it reflect upon the publication?

Pope Clarifies: I Am No Friend of the Jewish People

"Pope's Wartime Activities Resurface on Israeli Trip"; By Rachel Donadio; A5, A8

Pope Benedict XVI is no friend of the Jewish people. Though his visits to Israel will still be welcome, he has demonstrated a lack of empathy and understanding of us and our history. Benedict's unwillingness to confront the infamous legacy of his predecessor Pope Pius XII constitutes a block in Vatican-Jewish relations. 

The responses of Israeli journalist Tom Segev and MK Reuven Rivlin to the Pope's lackluster visit to Yad Vashem were appropriate and well-articulated. The Pope spoke like "somebody observing from the sidelines, about things that shouldn't happen...He was part of them," Rivlin said, referring to Benedict's enrollment in the Hitler Youth during World War II.

Rachel Donadio successfully reports on a disappointing moment in Catholic-Jewish reconciliation.

Bronner Names Names - Radical Islam Is a Threat to Middle East Christians

"Mideast's Christians Losing Numbers and Sway"; By Ethan Bronner; A1, A8

Ethan Bronner pens an exceptional, direct article on the front page about the decline of the Christian population in the Middle East, namely Iraq, Lebanon, and Bethlehem. 

"[The] dwindling and threatened Christian population [has been] driven to emigration by political violence, lack of economic opportunity and the rise of radical Islam," he writes.

The willingness to name names - radical Islam - is unusual and welcome. 

Two other sections are worthy of reprint:

“And since Islamic culture, especially in its more fundamental stripes, often defines itself in contrast to the West, Christianity has in some places been relegated to an enemy — or least foreign — culture.”

“And in Egypt, where 10 percent of the country is Coptic Christian, the prevalent religious discourse has drifted from what was considered to be a moderate Egyptian Islam toward a far less tolerant Saudi-branded Islam.”

Ethan Bronner's article - for once - speaks for itself and should be read in full.

Upsetting Palestinians

"Israel Closes Media Center, Upsetting Palestinians"
A12, Tuesday 5/12/09,
By Isabel Kershner

This headline could've easily been worded "Palestinian Authority Opens Media Center, Upsetting Israelis". Then the onus would've been on Kershner to explain exactly why opening a media center in East Jerusalem would upset Israeli authorities. She would've had to delve into the rationale behind the law she briefly cites.

Instead, the headline is another standard format when it comes to Times Mideast coverage: "Israel (Verb), Palestinians Upset" or "Israel (Verb), Stoking Tensions"

The Oslo Accords determined that Jerusalem's status would be decided in the negotiations on a permanent settlement. What Kershner fails to point out is that the 1994 law was part of an agreement with which the Palestinians agreed. It is often stated by the Times that by building in East Jerusalem, Israel prejudices a final status agreement. Is this not also true for the Palestinian Authority?

Kershner makes no attempt to seek out the rationale behind this law. Instead, the article is another "he-said, he-said," as Kershner states "Israel and the Palestinians competed to exercise authority in the contested part of the city." Actually, Israel already exercises authority in the contested part of the city and it is the Palestinian Authority that can reasonably be viewed as engaging in a provocative act.

Previous Palestinian Authority events in the city have not simply been political, but have incited against Israel. Kershner should've explored what "background material" was distributed for the papal visit by the PA at its Sunday event. The nature of this material, possibly propagandistic, would've underscored Israel's concern with what the Palestinian Authority does in Jerusalem, and help further explain why it chose to close down the media center the following day.

Not Understanding the Game

"An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu"
A26, Tuesday 5/12/09, Editorial

In Israel, and among its supporters, there is deep and profound concern both of the looming threat of Iran, and a world that increasingly fails to grasp the nature of its neighbors. This is a pivotal time for Israel and its ability to stave off the threats of a new era -- both military and political. No doubt, Prime Minister Netanyahu's meeting with President Obama will reflect the seriousness of the moment.

Yet what most concerns the Times are not these Israeli concerns, nor is it Israel's rationale vis-a-vis Iran or its policy review on the peace process. What concerns the Times are moves Israel should make that will supposedly ease the current peace process deadlock. "Game-changers," they're called.

Across the Middle East, there is a fundamental and near universal resistance (on a government and street level) to Israel’s permanence. Its manifestations include widespread anti-Israel incitement, the burgeoning popularity of Hezbollah and Hamas, and sham peace proposals.

Worse, the entity with whom Israel is expected to negotiate an end to the conflict, the Palestinian Authority (PA), daily delegitimizes Israel – through media incitement, lawfare and extreme negotiating positions. It should be clear, for those willing to look past sound-bytes, that for the PA, any accommodation with Israel is temporary.

In lieu of understanding these unfortunate realities, the New York Times (among others) has adopted a school of thought – an ideology – that sees both Israel and Arab regimes seeking an end to the conflict, but bogged down in a morass of fear, mistrust, and bad decisions.

In this alternate reality, and only in this alternate reality, “game-changers,” could work.

According to the Times, such moves include Netanyahu declaring “an end to settlement construction and an early return to substantive final status negotiations,” followed by Obama “challenging Arab leaders to respond”.

Nevermind that Israel has not built new settlements, nor outwardly expanded existing ones; that the previous Israeli government dismantled outposts and roadblocks; and had their offer of Palestinian statehood (with the farthest reaching concessions, according to reports) rebuffed by the unquestionably moderate PA; or that Arab regimes, on the rare occasion they’re urged to reach out to Israel, will respond, as they always have, that the Palestinian question must first be resolved.

Nevermind all this, since this disturbing history would sully hope.

When it comes to Israel's security concerns -- a prerequisite of any viable peace -- a typical Times editorial renders them as meaningless clichés, token references that go nowhere. For instance, citing the “administration’s list” for Israel, as verbalized by Joe Biden at the AIPAC conference, the Times includes a caveat with the demand that Israel grant Palestinians more responsibility for security: “to the extent that they (the Palestinians) combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel.”

That's a good start, but nothing more is made of it. If it were, readers would know that the PA has folded anti-Israel terrorist groups in to its security services; that Fatah’s own Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades continue to function; that taking on Hamas in the West Bank is more about self-preservation, than about security for Israel; and that incitement against Israel (by the PA itself) has gotten worse. The rest of this editorial would then sound silly for getting tough on Israel.

Instead, “Israeli leaders’ responses (to Obama’s two-state intentions) have been unconvincing and insufficient.” Netanyahu’s recent statement on pursuing peace with the Palestinians “rings hollow” and he may be trying to “ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere.”

Although Israel’s foreign minister has endorsed and even “obligated” Israel to the “Road Map” leading to a two-state solution and spoken frankly of the problems inherent in a rush to final-status talks, he and Netanyahu have “resisted and openly derided the two-state solution.”

Still, what most underscores in this piece the Times’ dopey and dogmatic view of the conflict is its contention that Arab-Israeli peace will be easier as both sides share a deep concern of a nuclear Iran. This view rests on two false assumptions: that an alliance between Israel and the Arab world is even needed to deter Iran; that such a strategic alliance, when played to its benefit, would convince the Arab world to accept Israel.

Avoiding difficult and obvious facts may be self-soothing, but it doesn't make for sound journalism. This latest editorial could be the most fitting tribute yet to the New York Times’ unenlightened view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.