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.
