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.

Times Sanitizes PA Preacher's Radical Remarks

"On His Tour, Pope Runs Into Politics of Middle East and Holocaust," A12, by Rachel Donadio

Times reporter Rachel Donadio sanitizes the radical nature of Sheikh Tamimi’s tirade at an interfaith meeting in which Pope Benedict was in attendance. Tamimi did not simply urge Muslims and Christians to unite in presumably non-violent "protest" against Israel, but he aspires to see the elimination of the Jewish State.

As quoted in 1994, Tamimi stated, "The Jews are destined to be persecuted, humiliated, and tortured forever, and it is a Muslim duty to see to it that they reap their due…Where Hitler failed, we must succeed."

Notably, Tamimi is the chief Islamic judge in Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority (PA) (Donadio only states that he is "the chief justice of the Palestinian Islamic courts"), Israel’s ostensible partner for peace. If a peaceful resolution to the conflict is in fact the PA’s goal, where is Abbas’ condemnation of these malicious words?

Surely the Times would expect such condemnation from Israel's Prime Minister if the Chief Rabbinate professed such radical beliefs. Per usual though, the Times fails to hold the Palestinians accountable for their extremism, treating it as the acceptable status quo.

In the words of the Vatican Press Office, Tamimi’s intervention was "a direct negation of what a dialogue should be."

[For a better coverage of the event, see the Jerusalem Post's article]

Israel Still the Bane of Egypt's Existence, Writes Slackman

"Egypt Prepares for Center Stage When Obama Addresses Arabs"; By Michael Slackman; A8

The Egyptian position regarding Gaza is ambivalent. On the one hand, Egypt expresses concern about Gazans; on the other, it has refused to incorporate Gaza into Egypt, evidencing limits to its sense of brotherhood. Michael Slackman accords this ambivalence, a key aspect of the Egyptian attitude, no space in “Egypt Prepares…”

While he begins the article discussing the paucity of human rights in authoritarian Egypt, Slackman dedicates its middle to Egyptian frustrations regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, “[Egyptians'] first priority.” Here, an irony appears; whereas the initial topic – human rights – evidenced the discord between the government and the populace, there is accord on attitudes toward Israel - a stunning congruence meriting explanation, though none is forthcoming. (The pervasiveness of anti-Semitism in Egyptian society is not a deserving topic.)

One wonders why a settlement freeze, the dismantling of checkpoints, and the opening of Israel-Gaza crossings is an Egyptian priority. Perhaps the excessive attention on Israel is one factor that inhibits a genuine struggle for human rights.

Regarding geopolitics, the evolving Euro-American-Arab position makes an appearance:

“Egypt maintains that to tame Iran — with which it is in open conflict — the issue of a Palestinian state must first be resolved,” writes Slackman.

Doubts about the efficacy of the Egyptian-Israeli treaty are also given their due. “Egypt has struggled to convince its people...that its commitment to the treaty is the best way to…preserve Egypt’s own national security,” the reporter writes. Of course, he does not present a counterargument, one that would suggest the truth of the converse – that the treaty is the key to Egypt’s “national security.” A quote from an American official may have brought forth this point.

“Egypt has already made clear that it cannot begin to give until it gets,” writes Slackman. He then goes on to explain that “giving” would be renouncing “the right of return,” without noting that “the right of return” would destroy Israel as a Jewish state.

At the end of the article, Slackman returns to human rights and democracy. This is the issue that Americans should be most concerned about since human rights and democracy is a part of our governing tradition and strengthening both is in our interest. The inter-Muslim struggle, wherein countries compete to be more hard-line than thou is not a game the US should concern itself with, yet this is what occupies Slackman’s attention.

Even the return to democracy, however, is marred by a quote from a spokesman of the Muslim Brotherhood criticizing the US for not “supporting democracy.” Identifying the Brotherhood with democracy would be laughable if Slackman appeared to be in on the joke.

Pope and Jordanian King's Adviser Agree: Jews Should Convert

"In Jordan, Pope Declares 'Ideological Manipulation'"; By Rachel Donadi; 12

Jordanian King Abdullah II's religious adviser and cousin, Prince Ghazi bin Muhammad bin Talal, uses the Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Amman to swipe at the Jewish people, indicating that one point of accord between Muslims and Christians may still be a disdainful view of Jews. 

Ghazi commended the Pope for rehabilitating the Tridentine Mass, which "includes a Good Friday prayer calling for the conversion of the Jews." 

Although this statement is despicable, it does put the Pope on the hot seat, where he should remain, for readmitting this Mass. As long as the Tridentine Mass remains viable, statements lauding "the inseparable bond between the church and the Jewish people," uttered by the Pope yesterday, will be hollow.

Development in the City of Jerusalem On the Front Page

"Parks Fortify Israel's Claim To Jerusalem"; By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner; 1,10

In an article meant to stimulate "public [and]...international scrutiny" of the state of Israel's plans to build a series of archaeological parks in and around the Old City in Jerusalem, several positive items about the plans slip through. 

The reader cannot read the article without coming away with the following conclusions:

1. The purpose of the parks is increase tourism to Jerusalem, which will financially benefit Jews and Arabs alike who live in the city. 
2. By highlighting ancient Jewish existence in the area, Israel will "strengthen the status of Jerusalem as its capital."
3. The archaeological work, which has rendered "indisputable evidence of ancient Jewish life" in and around Jerusalem, is "unassailable."

In addition, Bronner and Kershner make mention that under Jordanian rule from 1949 to 1967, Jerusalem was in much worse condition and Jews and Christians and their respective holy sites did not receive equal treatment under the law. This point is made by those who are skeptical about dividing Jerusalem.

Another promising indicator of honest reporting is how B&K handle Palestinian officials' denial that a Jewish Temple existed atop the Western Wall. "There is no scholarly dispute about whether the temple stood" there, they write - a conclusion that must discomfit these officials. 

Of course, the intent of the article - to embarrass Israel - is still manifest. For example, on the front page, where the article begins, B&K highlight "the threatened destruction of unauthorized Palestinian housing in the redevelopment areas," an issue that has been reported on in the last several weeks. 

On page 10, however, the reader learns that "new housing" for those same Palestinians is an integral part of the municipality's $100 million plan, mitigating the apparent tragedy from page 1.

Despite their worst intentions, then, B&K render a report that does more to substantiate Israeli actions than to vilify them.

The Ceaseless Call for Engagement with Radical Islam

"Islamophobia," BR23, by David Sanger
Book review of Engaging the Muslim World by Juan Cole

The title of the review, "Islamophobia," should give you an idea of how apologist academic Juan Cole views most staunch opposition to radical Islam. And using Bush's callous application of the neologism "Islamofascism," Cole makes the case for Engaging the Muslim World.

While reviewer David Sanger does give Cole entirely too much credit, he does call out the University of Michigan historian on one glaring flaw that should leave readers skeptical of Cole's work:

[Cole] compares the 9/11 hijackers to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, who read white supremacist works before bombing the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. To Cole, the two men “bear a number of striking similarities to members of such radical Egyptian groups as the Egyptian Islamic Jihad and the Islamic Grouping of the Blind Sheikh.” They all railed against “Jewish control of the U.S. government” and attacked tall buildings that were symbols of power. They all belonged to “fringe, if significant, movements.”

Did they? George W. Bush may have overinflated the power of Islamofascism, but certainly the radical Muslim movement, in all its incarnations, has a membership that is bigger and better financed than the American fringe groups, and with a presence in more countries than those home-grown extremists who threaten domestic terrorism.

There is a reason that we have tens of thousands of American troops on the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan: to stop radical groups from taking over either state, which would create a sanctuary for planning attacks around the world, and — in the case of Pakistan — to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons. Those are problems of a vastly different scale than apprehending the next Timothy McVeigh. And they explain why a new president who came into office as the anti-Bush, ready to use diplomacy first, is extending American military action in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

A logically sound scholar would not overreach with such a preposterous analogy, as Cole does. He seems unwilling to comprehend that a real struggle exists between Islamists and the United States that cannot simply be resolved through clever U.S. diplomacy and concessions.

While it may be an overreach to label Islamists as "Islamofascists," it does not obscure the the totalitarian nature of these radical groups that wish to eliminate U.S. influence in the region (See Terror and Liberalism, by Paul Berman). Under such conditions, the success of engagement does not bode well.

Pope The Purveyor of Peace? Please...

"Pope Says He Has 'Deep Respect' for Muslims," A9, by Rachel Donadio

In the third article in a week on the Pope's visit to the Middle East. the Times reports Pope Benedict's comically audacious "desire for the Roman Catholic Church to play a major role in fostering peace in the Middle East."

One would think that there already exist enough cooks in the kitchen of Mideast peacemaking diplomacy. Advice: ignore the Pope's empty rhetoric for more realistic measures.

The Non-Story (Slow News Day?)

"Lebanon: 5 Are Accused of Spying,"A6 (World Briefing), by The Associated Press

Lebanese authorities arrested five people in southern Lebanon on accusations of spying for Israel. And where's the story?

Per usual, the Times is prepared to print nearly anything related to Israel and the greater conflict, particularly when it portrays the country in a less than flattering light.

Of greater import: "Why Jane Fonda is Banned in Beirut: Anti-semitism leads to startling censorship in Lebanon."

Article on Pope's Visit Omits Durban II, Cause of Christian Decline

"Pope, Hope in Hand, Is Heading to Mideast"
A4, Friday 5/08/09
By Rachel Donadio

“Benedict is expected to make a speech calling attention to a pressing concern of the Catholic Church: the rapidly declining number of Christians in the Middle East. Although Christians have remained about 2 percent of Israel’s population since its founding, their presence in places like Bethlehem has decreased radically in past decades.”

While this issue was granted a paragraph, Donadio does not offer an explanation as to the “radical” decrease. This may have included the following:

In the Palestinian territories, notably in Bethlehem, Christians are victims of attacks, intimidation and extortion. Most have fled to Israel, which has the only growing Christian population in the Middle East.

While Donadio cited the Pope’s revoking Bishop Williamson’s excommunication, she should have also briefly cited another recent cause for concern among Israel and Jews: Durban II. Despite the knowledge that it would be a stage for incitement against Israel and would feature Ahmadinejad, the Pope sent his delegation, and offered blessings to the participants, never registering an iota of concern. As Ahmadinejad spoke of the evils of Zionism, and others walked out in protest, the Pope's delegation remained seated.

Bishop Williamson's Holocaust denial, and the Vatican’s latest deafening silence in the face of the world’s most noted Holocaust denier, should have been given space in this article.

Hamas' Actions Contradict Its Words

"Gaza Militants and Israel Exchange Fire"; World Briefing; By Isabel Kershner; A12

In yet another instance exposing Hamas' hypocrisy, the terrorist group fired mortar shells into Israel after declaring Monday that it was committed to ceasing fire.

The title asserts an equivalence rather than a sequentiality, wherein Hamas fired first.

The Pope Cannot Bring the Peace

"Can the Pope Bring Peace?"; John L. Allen, Jr.; A29

The notion that Pope Benedict can “bring the peace” should be the start of a joke, not an op-ed.

And, indeed, Allen mocks himself, his faith, Judaism, and Islam with his explanation for why Benedict may succeed in this area. 

The Pope's fanaticism - regarding condoms and HIV - is an advantage, Allen argues, since many Jews and Muslims are fanatical, too. 

Aside from the premise, several other flaws mar the piece. First, it begins with a myth – that Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount “set off the second intifada.”

Second, in describing the current moment, Allen attributes the sense of despair pervading Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s supposed lack of “commitment to Palestinian statehood.”

Third, Allen is self-righteous and self-indulgent when he writes that “Arab Christians have promoted a pluralistic vision of society, standing between resurgent Islamic fundamentalism and ultranationalist strains in Judaism.”

But to conclude, in answer to the question that is the title of the piece: No.

Iran and Syria Mock American Engagement

"Leaders of Iran and Syria Vow to Back 'Palestinian Resistance'"; AP; A9

In another embarrassing instance that Iran and Syria are not open to the new American administration’s policy of engagement, the two countries yesterday expressed support for Palestinian terrorism, which they call “resistance” and barely mentioned American overtures.

The most disheartening part of the article, however, discusses the Obama’s administration’s intention to put Israel on the block.

“There has been widespread speculation in the Middle East that the Obama administration would try to forge a bargain with Iran, in which Washington would press Israel for concessions in the peace effort with the Palestinians in exchange for Iran’s rolling back its nuclear program."

UN Bias Has a Familiar Ring

"Israel Rebuked for Gaza Attacks"; World Briefing; AP; A17

Israel and the United Nations are talking at cross purposes because the UN ignores the root cause for Israeli fire upon UN buildings during the Gaza offensive, an action that was condemned in a report issued yesterday.

Hamas operatives used the buildings for cover during the battle against the IDF. Holding Israel responsible and calling for compensation without acknowledging Hamas’ illegal use of its facilities is a demonstration of what Israel deputy ambassador to the UN called UN bias.

Lewis Airs Jewish Response to Charges Against Aipac Analysts

"At Annual Meeting, Pro-Israel Group Reasserts Clout"; By Neil A. Lewis; A19

Neil A. Lewis offers Aipac conference participants the space to respond to charges against Steven J Rosen and Keith Weissman. They viewed the accusations, which were dropped, as "an unfair, even toxic" way of questioning American Jews' loyalty to the US.

Lewis' remark that American politicians “offer praise for Aipac and support for Israel, both in generally unreserved language," however, is an overstatement. 

In another instance, Lewis relies on euphemism. Jimmy Carter “has turned harshly critical of Israel since leaving office,” he writes. Many pro-Israel Jews consider Carter a defamer, not a critic.

One last point, regarding the title: In truth, Aipac's clout never left it.

A Sympathetic Portrayal of Hamas Mars NYT's Pages

"Addressing U.S., Hamas Says It Has Grounded Its Rockets to Israel"; By Taghreed El-Khodary and Ethan Bronner; A6

Evidently, Khaled Meshal has felt the pressure generated by the publicizing of Hamas’ charter, which is anti-Semitic, and, as a result, “urge[s] outsiders to ignore” it, a rather strange and unconvincing call.

Not unexpectedly, this article is largely sympathetic to Hamas; after all, Meshal granted these reporters entrance to his home office in Damascus.

For example, in paragraph nine, El-Khodary and Bronner write,

“Apart from the time restriction and the refusal to accept Israel’s existence, Mr. Meshal’s terms approximate the Arab League peace plan and what the Palestinian Authority of President Mahmoud Abbas says it is seeking.”

Readers cannot be expected to believe that a ten year truce is reason to legetimize Hamas. To the extent that this position "approximate[s]" the Arab League and the Palestinian Authority, this similarity should reflect unfavorably on both of these organizations, rather than favorably on Hamas.

At the conclusion of the piece, Meshal, unaware, alludes to the cult of death Hamas inspires by comparing death to drinking water, which is a Jewish symbol of life.