Today’s New York Times includes a “news analysis” that trivializes truth by reducing the US turn against Israel at the United Nations to a personality clash between President Obama and Benjamin Netanyahu. The article, by Peter Baker, is full of references to “forced smiles and strained jokes,” “tense and tetchy relationship,” “blistering anger,” “mutual contempt,” and more. Anyone who relied on the Times to understand what just happened at the United Nations would be woefully misinformed.
“If [the abstention] is the last word,” Baker writes, “it will serve as a coda to a relationship that never clicked.”
In fact, personal differences have nothing to do with the historic American decision to not veto a Security Council resolution condemning Israeli “settlements” in occupied Palestine. First, even Barack Obama’s critics recognize that he maintains his cool, and he has mastered his emotions about political opponents who have been far more vicious than Netanyahu. Over the years, Obama has made clear that he understands the reality of Israel/Palestine, and that even more “settlements” will destroy any tiny, lingering hope for a 2-state solution. To suggest he would change U.S. policy in a fit of anger is journalistic malpractice.
But neither is Benjamin Netanyahu motivated mainly by personal rancor. Israelis and others who have followed him for years recognize that although he is certainly right-wing, his main aim is to maintain himself in power, a task he has done so successfully that he is the longest-serving prime minister in Israel’s history. Netanyahu’s aggressive stance toward Obama is aimed directly at an Israeli electorate that in recent years has moved vigorously toward the far-right.
The New York Times, along with the rest of the U.S. mainstream media, has covered up this surge to the far right in Israel. Times reporters mostly avoid interviews with Israelis, either politicians or in the general public, who spout views that could fairly and without exaggeration be called “fascist.” On rare occasions, the Times will talk to a right wing figure, but the result is a whitewash, as in this laughable 2015 profile of the current Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked.
The Times article is dangerous. It implies that if the problem is basically a personality clash, it should end when the new president is sworn in on January 20. But it won’t — and Israel/Palestine will continue to move closer to a cataclysm.
Israel has a serious problem. This is not cyclical. It is systematic. No settler has a legitimate right to live east of the green line. Israel assumed it would all work out. It will not. The basis of global order is no forced border changes.
The Times article is dangerous. It implies that if the problem is basically a personality clash, it should end when the new president is sworn in on January 20.
But it won’t — and Israel/Palestine will continue to move closer to a cataclysm.
Worth noting that 14 members of the Security Council voted FOR the resolution, demanding Israel end the settlements.
The 14 members who voted against Israel’s theft and occupation of Palestine represent over two billion people, who are sickened by Israeli criminal racist cruelty.
It is not case of journalistic malpractice, but Netanyahu is not the longest serving prime minister of israel, that record is held by Ben gurion. Netanyahu’s current premiership of 7 years and almost 9 months is the longest consecutive service, longer than Ben Gurion’s longest stint of 7 years and almost 8 months. But bibi’s total is 10 years and 9 months, less than ben gurion’s total of 13 years and 4 months.
(Ben Gurion’s first term in office began before he was elected to office, from may of 48 until elections in January of 49. Since the election itself was for a constitutional assembly and not for knesset and the assembly renamed themselves as a legislative body, the knesset, strictly speaking his term as elected prime minister rather than putschist prime minister began later after the second knesset elections. But Israelis consider his elected term of office to have begun in February 49, making his total term in elected office still longer than bibi’s so far, by about a little less than 2 years. )
RE: The article, by Peter Baker, is full of references to “forced smiles and strained jokes,” “tense and tetchy relationship,” “blistering anger,” “mutual contempt,” and more . . . ~ North
■ PHOTO of Netanyahu and Obama*
* recently used by Haaretz – http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.745959
“The Times article is dangerous. It implies that if the problem is basically a personality clash, it should end when the new president is sworn in on January 20.”
That’s not only an implicaton, but the only intentionen of the article. To distract from the different and long standing difference on settlements between Israel and the US and to hope, that Trump will take an individual approach in Israel’s favor.
From the article:
“Mr. Oren said the real obstacle to peace was Palestinian incitement, not Israeli settlements.”
What a ludicrous attempt to whitewash nearly half a century of Israel’s occupation of the Palestinians. What I don’t get is why ther Palestians are not able to present a verifiable compilation of the daily incitement and violence from Israelis to counter this accusation at the UN.
“It’s not only an anti-Israel resolution but an anti-Semitic resolution,” he said.”
Hasbara trolling 101. Or he demands the right for Jews to violate the human rights of Nonjews and international law.