Powered by WebAds

Thursday, September 15, 2011

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.
Understatements all.
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: , , ,


At 9:35 PM, Blogger Sunlight said...

This is an amazing post, with not a mention anywhere of the fact that all the agreements on the books call for Step One as the cessation of bombings, rockets, suicide explosions, etc. of Palestinians against Israelis. All this other stuff about protocol, apartments, etc. is just a smokescreen to bring about the abrogation of the written documents calling for Palestinians to stop killing Jews. I feel like some in Israel (hopefully not Netanyahu) are falling for the trick. If the status quo is that the attacks are just part of the scenery, then the NEW negotiations will hit up Israel for concessions with the attacks considered outside/before the starting point. Not a good idea.

Anytime someone says it is because of Israel that Middle Easterners, etc. are so violent, the thing to do is to tell them to read Winston Churchill's book, River War, about Sudan in 1898. Waaaayyyyy before the current Israeli state was formed. The Turks/Ottomans and Egyptians ran slave trade and allowed/performed slaughters, rape, confiscation, etc. along the river to the south. The Brits, those evil imperialists, built a train so the people might be able to trade and not starve, and tried to stop the slaughter, slave trade, etc.

Israel has a lot of friends in the world. People who read understand what's happening. The NYT is on the other side.

At 9:50 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carl, the NYT is a rag. It's not worth the paper it's written on and is only read by the 20% Far Left who have ceased to matter to anyone but themselves.

At 10:23 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What typical soi dissant mandarin drivel.

Oh, so now Jews can't even fail to electorally support the self-pitying SCOAMF in the Whine House without being accused of underhanded, disloyal and blind ingratitude.

Settlements? Land swops for peace? The Palestinians (who walked out of talks) have already made it clear that, say, as far as "East Jerusalem" goes, there will be no agreed swops, that the kotel plaza is a place of "sin and filth" and will be destroyed, and that Zionist "Judaization" of Jerusalem must end and all Jews leave. And their preconditions reflect their end games and their demands for right-of-return.

"No vote in New York City" (or the high precincts of the Times court Jew and contemptuous gentile editorial conclaves) makes it "any less true--or any less dangerous" that it is the Palis who refuse to negotiate and insist on locking in a two-Palestinian-state-in-stages strategy in place through Western obsequiousness and the desperate desire of Obama to appease the Arab-Islamic block.

So even as we speak the EU-Quartet-Whine House maneuvers continue to get the Palis to pretty-please temporarily pull back from their UDI gambits in exchange for further pressure on the Jews:


You'd think there would be some left-lib modesty forthcoming about those "tough sanctions" on Iran as Iran steams towards nukes but no such luck.

The only reason Bibi's sandals aren't peeking out from underneath Obama's magical mystery tour bus is that Bibi has kicked back, tho arguably not with sufficient force.

At 1:47 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, btw, nationally, 4 out of 10 Jews poll as disapproving President O:


--those dual loyalist, Bibi-loving, treacherous, ingrates!

At 9:54 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

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.

But that is not the case here. The nation isn't in Israel. It's miscreats are spreading mischief in the USA, attacking other religions, in EUrope, and everywhere else.

Don't think that statement was hypocritical, and Balaam's prophecy was taken out of context? Get your nation in Israel, then make that statement, and you may command some respect. At the moment, utter contempt


Post a Comment

<< Home