Israel Matzav

NY Times accuses Israel of controlling America

The New York Times editorializes in Friday's editions that if Binyamin Netanyahu wants to prove that he is a 'partner for peace,' all he has to do is surrender to all 'Palestinian' demands.

It will not be that hard to judge by his deeds, and relatively soon, whether Mr. Netanyahu is serious about seeking peace with the Palestinians. His government is expected to win parliamentary approval next week.

After that, we suggest that he start with freezing further settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank, as Israel has so often promised but failed to do. He should lift roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns that are not needed for security. In East Jerusalem, he should stop the humiliating eviction of Palestinians. And in Gaza, he must expand exceptions to the blockade to allow the import of cement and reconstruction materials.

If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about being a partner for peace, he will not get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah faction — as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. He will recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians — and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them. He also will not start a preventive war with Iran.

None of the steps the Times calls for is required by any international agreement into which Israel has entered. Even the 'road map' - to which Israel presented fourteen reservations that were ignored by the Bush administration - requires that the 'Palestinians' first do something that they have assiduously refused to do for the past fifteen and a half years: dismantle the terrorist organizations.

But let's go through each of the Times' action items....

The Times calls on Israel to "freez[e] further settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank." Perhaps the Times wishes to require that those Jews who currently live in Judea and Samaria undergo vasectomies and tubal ligations, respectively, or that they seek the Times' permission before engaging in unprotected sexual relations. It is part of the ordinary course of human events that couples marry and have children. People anywhere in the world who have children, who are able to afford it, expand their homes to accomodate their growing families. When children marry, they must live somewhere. It is often the case that children wish to live near their parents. While the government can (and has) placed limits on the creation of new 'settlements' (a term I despise because it carries with it the notion of being temporary), limiting people's ability to expand their homes or otherwise build on property that they have legally purchased is a level of government interference that the Times would rightfully decry if it were imposed on America's citizenry.

But more importantly, it has now been more than forty years since Israel liberated the territory in Judea and Samaria in a defensive war in which three Arab countries - Egypt, Syria and Jordan - attempted to destroy the Jewish state and annihilate its people. The 'Palestinians' have turned down dozens of attempts to give them a state - most recently in September 2008. In most cases, the 'Palestinians' have declined the offer of a state with a simple no. In some cases, they have not even bothered to respond to offers made to them. In no case have they ever made a counter-proposal. They have continued to stick to the same absolutist position that they have held since before the State of Israel was ever established: No Jewish state. (Please don't tell me about the 'Palestinians' being willing to accept only the 'territories conquered in 1967,' since they have continued to insist that a state on that territory is just a 'phase,' and have insisted on flooding even that territory with 'refugees' who would demographically overwhelm the Jewish state). At what point, if ever, will the Times accept that this land need no longer sit in suspended animation waiting for the 'Palestinians' to accept it? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? What precedent is there for such a situation in human history and how can the Times justify setting this one?

The Times calls on Netanyahu to "lift roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns that are not needed for security." On what basis do the security experts on the New York Times' editorial board determine that there are any roadblocks that are not needed for security? Israel has lifted every roadblock it can - including some it should not have lifted. Two weeks ago, the IDF lifted a roadblock near Shchem (Nablus) and within a few days we got this terror attack. Last week, we almost got this terror attack. Israel is a democracy. Does the Times really believe that we voted for a Right wing government because we want Netanyahu to risk our lives by foolishly lifting roadblocks? Or is the Times suggesting that Netanyahu should just ignore the election results?

The Times calls on Netanyahu to "stop the humiliating eviction of Palestinians" in East Jerusalem. The 'eviction' is not being carried out by the Israeli government, but by the City of Jerusalem, which is attempting to enforce its zoning laws by removing illegally built homes from the center of an area designated as a national park. Do they still have zoning laws in Manhattan? If a group of minorities built a cluster of shanties in the middle of Central Park and settled down to live there, would the Times object to the City of New York removing them? If not, why should the City of Jerusalem be treated any differently than the City of New York?

The Times calls on Netanyahu to "expand exceptions to the blockade to allow the import of cement and reconstruction materials" into Gaza. The Times is suggesting that we allow Gilad Shalit to rot away in Hamas captivity in Gaza by giving up our only leverage that is forcing Hamas to negotiate for his release. The Times is also suggesting that we allow materials in that are more likely to be used to construct rockets to fire at southern Israel than to be used to rebuild 'Palestinian' homes destroyed in Hamas' war on Israel. The number of rockets being shot into Israel has declined significantly over the last few weeks due to the blockade around Gaza. Is the Times willing to take responsibility for the Israelis who will - God forbid - be killed and wounded if the rocket fire resumes at the levels of November and December? Does the Times believe that Israelis elected Netanyahu to give in to Hamas terror like that?

The Times calls on Netanyahu not to "get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah faction — as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians." I don't recall hearing that Netanyahu has objected to a unity government under those circumstances, but so far at least, that is not what is on the table. The 'Palestinians' are seeking a formula that will allow Hamas and Fatah to join a unity government without accepting past agreements ('respecting' them instead) and without accepting Israel's right to exist. In fact, a Fatah spokesman on 'Palestinian' television announced ten days ago that Fatah doesn't want Hamas to accept Israel's right to exist. So why is the Times implying that Netanyahu is the obstacle?

I'm going to skip the penultimate demand, because I want to treat that at the end.

The Times calls on Netanyahu not to launch a preventive war against Iran. Israel is a democracy. Israelis elected Netanyahu and the current Knesset because we believed that they were best able to promulgate a policy that will protect us against Iranian nuclear weapons. We did not elect the New York Times or Barack Obama. We expect - as would the citizens of any democracy - that our government will act in our best interests in meeting the Iranian threat. For the Times to suggest that our government should subordinate our security and our best interests to someone else's interests is odious and anti-democratic.

But the Times' most hideous demand is the penultimate one. The Times calls on Netanyahu to "recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians — and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them." For anyone who missed it, the implication is that Israel, via the mysterious and powerful 'Israel Lobby,' controls the United States and can prevent the Obama administration from pursuing its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the 'Palestinians.' Does the Times really believe that? If so, American Jewry had better start packing its bags.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:52 PM