Two friends have pointed me to the New York Times' story today on the Netanyahu government's apparent willingness to cut a deal regarding settlements. The story is remarkable for its utter immersion in the Israeli discourse. "Where are the critical voices?" a friend asks. "American? Israeli? Palestinian?
Seems to me this is a free day of advancing Netanyahu's policy." There are no critics at all quoted. But note the officious tone, the piety about rightwingers making policy:
While such an offer falls short of President Obama’s
demand that Israel halt all settlement building now, it is the most
forthcoming response that senior Israeli officials have given to date
and suggests that American pressure is having some effect. Until now,
Israeli officials have insisted that settlements cannot be asked to end
“natural growth” or “normal life,” meaning building for the children of
those living there.
The officials who spoke of the prospect of
a temporary freeze said the issue was explosive in Israel, so they were
not prepared to have their names publicly associated with the idea at
this stage. But they spoke with clear authority.
I love "forthcoming" and "clear authority." As if these are sober statesmen, and not ideologues. Try to imagine a reporter in Tehran echoing the Ahmadinejad government's line on the election, without quoting any of the opposition. There would be rage. Ethan Bronner also regurgitates Israeli propaganda–and balances it with Obama's "beliefs".
Israel says the real problem is Arab rejection of its existence in
any borders at all and the rise of violent, radical Islam backed by
Iran. When it removed soldiers from southern Lebanon in 2000 and
soldiers and settlers from Gaza in 2005, it faced rocket fire from Hezbollah and Hamas.
The
Obama administration believes that in order to build a solid regional
coalition to confront Iranian ambitions, West Bank settlement building
needs to stop as a sign of Israeli willingness to accept a Palestinian
state.
No surprise here. Ethan Bronner of the Times has never been an "honest broker" when it comes to truth-telling in the I-P conflict. What's interesting here is that there is an effort on the part of the Israelis to send smoke signals in the "newspaper of record" that they are willing to . . . ahem, uh, "compromise." The so-called compromise means they continue building 2,000 new structures. Not sure it matters what the Times prints or doesn't print. Barak's meeting with George Mitchell today is not going to be pleasant, and the proposal is weak-kneed and tepid, following the G-8-French-Italian-Australian-Quartet demands on Friday that settlement activity must stop and it must stop now.
Barak's flying to meet Obama today; his proposal is Israel will freeze settlements now only as part of a larger agreement to unfreeze later: http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default.aspx?tabid=1...
Haaretz, on the other hand, is scathing about the "defective trinkets that no one wants…". (via Antony Lowenstein, highly recommended) "…What a pathetic sight: An Israeli prime minister, who was just elected with new promise, travels around the world with such moldy wares. While Obama talks big, Netanyahu talks about the smallest of the small. While Obama is portrayed as the harbinger of historic change, Netanyahu is seen as dealing in trivialities, a petty merchant trying to sell defective trinkets that no one wants…". http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1096063.html
Why does Obama only pick on Israel? http://atheonews.blogspot.com/2009/06/tribalistic...
RE: "…Netanyahu is seen as dealing in trivialities, a petty merchant trying to sell defective trinkets that no one wants…" FROM URI AVNERY, 05/25/09: (excerpt) "…This week, the whole world saw how this is done. Obama sat in the Oval Office side by side with Binyamin Netanyahu and spoke to the journalists. He was earnest, but relaxed. The body language spoke clearly: while Netanyahu leaned forward assiduously, like a traveling salesman peddling his merchandise, Obama leaned back, tranquil and self-assured…" SOURCE – http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery05252009.html
The New York Times is hardly unique in use of Zionist discourse: Makdisi Overlooks US Journalistic Nazification. The problem is hardly confined to newspapers: Zionist Indoctrination: Boston Grammar Schools.
Who will stand up against oppression?
Apparently, not Obama. Nor Abbas, Nor I'm a dinner jacket.