New York Times slams Bibi again
The New York Times is using Tuesday's election results in NY-9 to slam Prime Minister Netanyahu again
. lso claiming it was a repudiation of President Obama’s policies toward Israel.
On Wednesday, an article on the Web site of the Israeli newspaper Haaretz said that “in politics it is the perception that counts,” and that the Democratic loss “will be portrayed, as the outspoken former Mayor Ed Koch put it, ‘as a message to President Obama that he cannot throw Israel under a bus with impunity.’ ”
Mr. Obama has done nothing of the sort; his support for Israel has never wavered.
You can't fool all of the people all of the time. No American President has ever attempted to make negotiations more meaningless than has Barack Hussein Obama. No American President has ever attempted to make Israel give up all its assets before talks start as has Barack Hussein Obama. No American President has ever enabled the 'Palestinians' to stay away from the table by use of a 'settlement freeze' - particularly one that includes Jerusalem - as has Barack Hussein Obama. No American President has ever forced Israel to sweat out every UN veto as has Barack Hussein Obama. No American President has ever attempted to undermine Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state as has Barack Hussein Obama. Do I need to go on?
But we fear that Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, will read the election as yet another reason to ignore the president’s advice and refuse to make any compromises with the Palestinians, no matter how essential for Israel’s own security.
If they ever get to a table, they might find out that Netanyahu is ready to compromise. The problem is that they can't get to the table because Abu Bluff wants the outcome decided before they ever get there. And Obama is enabling him to maintain that position.
Mr. Koch played a cynical game in urging special-election voters to choose the Republican as a rebuke to Mr. Obama for saying that Israel’s pre-1967 borders — with mutually agreed land swaps — should be the basis of any peace agreement. That has been the basis of every deal sought by American presidents for more than a decade. Mr. Netanyahu now hints that he, too, accepts it.
Whether or not it's supposed to be the basis for a deal (and that's certainly not what UN Security Council resolution 242 says), Obama is the first President to demand that the starting point be the 1967 borders and that the 'Palestinians' agree to any changes. Until now, the starting point was where we are and Israel had to agree to any concessions. That's a sea change.
Mr. Obama has not handled the Israeli-Palestinian issue adroitly. Palestinians certainly waited too long to begin negotiations, and Arab leaders failed to offer initiatives that might give Israel confidence that a serious deal was possible.
But Mr. Netanyahu has been the most intractable, building settlements and blaming his inability to be more forthcoming on his conservative coalition.
Find me a 'settlement' that Netanyahu has built. Name one. Send Ethan Bronner all over the 'West Bank' to look for one. You won't find ANY because there are none. Maybe an apartment here or there within an existing 'settlement.' But Netanyahu like every other Prime Minister for the last 20 years has not built a single 'settlement.' Maybe since we're going to be blamed for building them regardless, he should build a few?
Egged on by Congressional Republicans, he has sought to embarrass Mr. Obama — astonishing behavior for so close an ally that does not serve his own country’s interest.
Excuse me? Who left whom to go have dinner with his family? Who held a White House meeting without photographers present and insisted that Netanyahu enter and leave via a side door? Who is trying to embarrass whom?
Mr. Obama has repeatedly affirmed support for Israel and backed it up with action. He has had far more success than President George W. Bush in rallying tough sanctions on Iran.
Stop blaming Bush - he's been gone for three years. And Obama had to be dragged kicking and screaming by Congressional Democrats (notably Howard Berman) to pass sanctions he didn't want. They only avoided a veto by giving Obama a way out of them.
They should put a map and a timeline on the table and demand that both sides join in.
That's absurd. That's what the Times calls negotiations?
Mr. Netanyahu should be worried that his country is more isolated now than when he took office. That isolation will deepen so long as negotiations remain stalemated. No vote in New York City makes that any less true — or any less dangerous for Israel.
Unfortunately, the isolation was foretold in Bamidbar (Numbers) by the non-Jewish prophet Bilaam. Hen am l'vadad yishkon u'ba'goyim lo yithchashav
. For this nation shall dwell alone and it shall not be counted among the nations. That is our fate. We're not going to commit national suicide to avoid it.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Middle East peace process, two-state solution