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.