In an opinion piece published hours after sundown on Friday, November 12, the New York Times suggested that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was not serious about current peace talks. Unfortunately for the Times, this is simply not true. Netanyahu instituted a West Bank building moratorium for 18 months to get talks started. The Palestinian Authority waited for 17 months before sitting down to talk, then demanded the moratorium be extended. Netanyahu suggested he’d extend the moratorium if PA leader Mahmoud Abbas simply recognized Israel as a Jewish State. Abbas scoffed at this.
The facts remain that of the two sides, Israel is the ONLY one continually making concessions, continually driving for further talks, and continually devoted to peace. The PA has done nothing but ask for more, more, more, and has tacitly supported terror attacks on innocent Israelis. Do we really want our press taking such a strong stand against Israel, when the facts are so strongly supporting the Jewish State?
Jennifer Hanin details in her blog how this “opinion” unfairly characterizes Israel and its leader.
As expected, the New York Times is up to their old tricks again. It wasn’t enough that the newspaper flaunted their penchant for cozying up with Communists in its Sunday’s Metro section, “Where Marxists Pontificate, And Play,” now the once-respected publication has cast a black shadow over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s stateside visit with Secretary of State Hilary Clinton.
In tonight’s “opinion” piece, “Politics Over Peace,” the newspaper again casts Netanyahu as a naive blowhard who doesn’t realize that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the key to Israel’s long-term security. Well, apparently the New York Times is asleep at the wheel because Netanyahu has stated on numerous occasions that peace is the only answer for Israel’s longstanding security. He has talked openly about the ongoing threat of a nuclear Iran and closer to home, he has discussed the culture of hatred and violence that is prevalent among Palestinians and how we must address both threats in order to have a chance at real peace.
It’s interesting that the New York Times idolizes murderous regimes by humanizing them yet it dares to trivialize peace gestures that Netanyahu has made. The newspaper overlooked the fact that Netanyahu extended an olive branch to Abbas for well over a year, appeared on Larry King Live among other TV shows to request a sit-down with Abbas and ordered an 18-month construction freeze just to entice Abbas to talk. Netanyahu also eased the blockade to allow more materials into Gaza (even though IDF finds weapon caches in smuggling crackdowns on a regular basis). So why should Netanyahu do more when we know that caving into every demand shows weakness not strength?
And what have the Palestinians done? What concessions have they made? Well, besides stalling for 17-months, grandstanding at every given chance, speaking out of two sides of their mouths (one to the American press and the other to the Arab press), making ridiculous demands, and walking away, they’ve done zilch. In fact, their involvement in direct talks was so fleeting that it appears it was only to save face in the eyes of the international community. We all know showboating when we see it and the Palestinians haven’t made one effort to show that they are even a teeny bit close to being “serious” about peace. Minus nonproductive ones like kicking their global boycott, divest and sanction (BDS) campaign against Israel into high gear and making veiled threats to circumvent Israel via the anti-Israel U.N. Clearly, the facts suggest that the Palestinians are NOT serious about peace.
This is because we know that if a party is really serious about peace, they wouldn’t stall for 17 months. We know that if a party is really serious about peace, they wouldn’t walk away from an historic peace-making opportunity. We know that if a party is really serious about peace they wouldn’t ask for the moon, sun and the sky. We know that if a party is really serious about peace, they wouldn’t have a logo with machine guns on either side of Israel with a grenade underneath. We know that if a party is really serious about peace they would acknowledge Israel on their maps. And lastly, we all know if a party is really serious about peace they would acknowledge Israel as a Jewish State instead of teaching their sons and daughters to kill innocent Israelis and Jews.
I have a few words of advice for the New York Times: Don’t underestimate the power of your readership. It’s doubtful that the murderous regimes you write fondly about subscribe to your paper. But the freedom-loving Americans that buy your paper filled with hateful diatribes (or in your case, opinions) on the only democratic state in the Middle East might just be disgusted enough not to renew their subscriptions.
P.S. Brilliant timing on releasing your “Opinion” during Shabbat when most strong voices for Israel are silent. Cowards.