Ali Abunimah said it best: you can't negotiate over sharing a pizza when your adversary is eating the pizza during the negotiations. Well, the New York Times is back with more editorial page propaganda that blames the Palestinian Authority for not being willing to negotiate while Israel continues its pizza-gobbling colonial project.
All share blame for the stalemate... The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seemed to give up on diplomacy when Mr. Obama could not deliver a promised settlement freeze.
Also, the NYT repeats Israel's 'no partner' talking point by not mentioning the nine-year-old Arab Peace Initiative, which gives Israel plenty of incentive to compromise - full diplomatic relations, and acceptance of its conquest of 78% of historic Palestine!
"Arab leaders haven’t given the Israelis any incentive to compromise. "
Barf. Who writes this stuff, neutral journalists or Israel's P.R. department?
Once when becomes fully aware of the history and the reality of the occupation, the question is what incentives are they talking about? Israel illegally occupies Palestinian land. When I was middle school and saw Yitzhak Rabin shaking hands with ‘terrorist’ Arafat with Clinton in the background, I remember some talk about negotiating ‘land for peace’
What exactly does that mean anyway? Since Oslo, Israel has accelerated settlement building. The rhetoric that they only built in existing settlements leaves out the part that they’re essentially growing cancerous tumors. Most of that growth has come since 1993. Israel has done very little to manage illegal outposts in the WB despite destroying Bedouin outposts in Israel.
Land for peace. Peace is the incentive, now give them back their land. It’s less than they were supposed to get anyways. When Rabin was killed by an Israeli Jew just two years later, I think it should’ve been obvious who really didn’t want peace.
Notice how the editorial criticizes Republicans for their obstructionism and doesn’t mention Democrats. The NYT doesn’t want to mention how virtually all of Congress bowed down before Netanyahu.
On this point–
“Who writes this stuff, neutral journalists or Israel’s P.R. department?”
It’s not quite that simple. The editorial does criticize Israel. I haven’t looked at the comments underneath the editorial but I assume there are some commenters shrieking about how it’s all the fault of the Arabs and the NYT is vicious and evil to blame Israel at all.
The problem is the unspoken rule–No matter what the circumstances, never criticize Israel without criticizing Arabs. The reverse does not apply. That is, if the blame truly could be split 50/50, the NYT would put it all on the Palestinians and the wider Arab world.
>> No matter what the circumstances, never criticize Israel without criticizing Arabs.
And then there’s the “Witty Principle”: Despite being by far the primary aggressor, Israel must never make the first move toward reconciliation. The victim, not the rapist, must always be the first to “humanize ‘the other’”…even as the rapist continues to rape her.
Here’s the most recent example:
>> RW: Time to move to respecting the other.
>> eljay: So…when is Israel going to start respecting Palestinians and – at the very least, at the bare f*cking minimum! – halt its ON-GOING campaign of aggression, oppression, theft, colonization, destruction and murder?
>> RW: If you actually try person by person, rather than ranting at persons, you’d have some success at all aspects of improvement for Palestinian condition.
>> eljay: That’s it? That’s your answer? Pathetic. But not surprising.
RE: “The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seemed to give up on diplomacy when Mr. Obama could not deliver a promised settlement freeze.” ~ NYT
MY SNARK: And why shouldn’t Abbas give up on diplomacy when the “Abrams Principle” proves that additional settlement activity by Israel will ultimately result in the largest possible Palestinian state?!?!
FROM ELLIOTT ABRAMS, 04/08/09:
SOURCE – link to washingtonpost.com
P.S. Ergo, the ‘Abrams Principle’ stands for the proposition that more Israeli settlement activity in the West Bank will result in a larger area for the Palestinian state. That’s why I say, “Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the settlement actvity; so as to result in the largest Palestinian state possible (from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River)! “Let Right Be Done.”
One thing I have learned from reading Phil, here, is that it is good to look at the positive side. Especially when reading a pro-Israel paper like the NYTimes.
I realize there is much cringe-making ;) stuff in this editorial, but I think that the money quote is the recommendation for a US map and plan so both parties can work from it. Obama will never do that and if he did we would probably get something written by Ross and AIPAC. George Mitchell wanted to propose a plan, but the President and Dennis nixed the idea.
Still if you haven’t totally dismissed the two-state solution altogether, you have to give the editorial two thumbs up for proposing that Obama propose something (a very unObama like thing to do.)
Groups such as Peace Now have called for an American proposal. So has the Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar. I do not know if JStreet has. My guess is that they wouldn’t want to ruffle Obama’s feathers.
Money Quote: