Trending Topics:

‘NYT’ preaches to Palestinians about launching ‘intifadas’

The New York Times today has a vicious editorial with a vicious headline: “Mahmoud Abbas Gives Up on Peace.” It blames the Palestinians for the impasse in the endless peace process; because the Palestinian president said yesterday at the United Nations that he wants to dump his responsibilities under Oslo to cooperate with Israel in providing security for the occupation.

The Times lists the causes of the breakdown of the peace process:

suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism, intifadas, rocket barrages, unceasing expansion of settlements, military clashes

So Israel’s unceasing colonization of the land is a mere footnote to Palestinian violence. And what are military clashes? Donald Johnson explains:

When they list crimes, the emotional words are reserved for the Palestinian crimes–“terrorism” “rocket barrages” and they even include “intifadas” as though the act of rebellion itself is a crime. On the Israeli side there is “unceasing expansion of settlements”, which doesn’t convey the violence or the extreme racism involved and then they talk about “military clashes”‘ which is apparently the category one uses for Israeli massacres.

The usual 50-90 rule is in effect–that is, if Israel should get 90 percent of the blame or more, the NYT will split it 50/50 but if the Palestinians ever deserve 50 percent of the blame on a given incident, the NYT will award them 90 percent.

This is why I think the pro-Palestinian side has to stress how much racism (probably unconscious) there is on the pro-Israeli side, rather than allowing the liberal PEP (Progressive Except Palestine) types to focus only on antisemitism.

Matt Duss at Slate is ahead of the Times here:

Abbas is largely correct when he claimed that the Palestinians had met their commitments while Israel has ignored its own

The Times is also ignoring the forthright statement from Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely that the Israeli government will give up no lands on the West Bank:

according to the official policy of the Israeli government, “[Handovers of] Judea and Samaria aren’t even on the list of options we’re offering the Palestinians,” she announced. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, while professing to support the creation of a Palestinian state in principle, “never said that the evacuation of Judea and Samaria is an option. He says we learned the lessons of the [2005 Gaza] Disengagement and that the world needs to get used to this idea. That’s one of the messages that I place great emphasis on.”

The world needs to internalize that the West Bank is to remain under Israeli “de facto sovereignty,” Hotovely said. “It’s not a bargaining chip. It does not depend on the Palestinians’ goodwill. It’s the land of our forefathers. We don’t intend to evacuate it.’

Netanyahu’s new ambassador to the U.N. has also said clearly: “God promised the land” to the Jews, we’re not giving that up.

When you read about the quarter-century peace process, you should bear in mind a pointed observation that former ABC Middle East bureau chief Charles Glass makes in his new book.

The Palestinian revolution sold out, making the lives of the people it claimed to represent more wretched in the Israeli-occupied territories and in exile.

The world powers committed to supporting the Palestinians in that sell-out, because they were committed to Israel’s existence. But the world did nothing to provide rights to Palestinians. The political bitterness of the Palestinians, and the great violence they experience, and often resist, are all inevitable consequences. Any people in their situation would be launching “intifadas.”

Thanks to Mitchell Plitnick.

philweiss
About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.

Other posts by .


Posted In:

11 Responses

  1. pabelmont
    pabelmont on October 2, 2015, 12:58 pm

    Any people in their situation would be launching “intifadas.”

    Indeed. And wasn’t the terrorism and political violence of the Irgun and other Jewish terrorist organizations in Palestine before 1948 as species of “intifada” aimed at getting rid of the overburden of the British Mandatory rule (and the underburden, so to speak, of the Palestinian Arabs)? Why isn’t this comparison continuously made ??

    • bryan
      bryan on October 3, 2015, 5:29 am

      You are right, but you could also have mentioned the intifadas raised by the ancient Israelites and Judeans against the Hasmoneans and Romans – though these were enormously destructive of the resisting communities as the Romans reacted with a vigour and brutality that more than matches that of the modern Israeli governments. (though there were no NGOs or UN in those days to report the abuses of power) Ironic then that Netanyahu’s defence of Israel’s right to exist usually complains about the centuries long persecution that began with the Babylonians and Romans.

  2. Krauss
    Krauss on October 2, 2015, 2:36 pm

    History will judge the NYT’s complict relationship with Jewish Apartheid very harshly.

    • just
      just on October 3, 2015, 10:36 am

      They’ll have to get in line behind many US Presidents and Congresses and DoDs. There’s been a dedicated US criminal complicity and propaganda machine at work for decades.

      Its tentacles are everywhere and they’ve been omnipresent.

      • Krauss
        Krauss on October 3, 2015, 1:47 pm

        Not sure by tentacles and all that, but the NYT has a special obligation as a bastion of the liberal press. What do you expect from politicians?

        The whole point of the media is to be a spotlight on society and to be a critical force. Which is why the NYT’s complicity in Jewish Apartheid, even in its terminal stage, is going to be judged exceptionally harshly.

  3. JWalters
    JWalters on October 2, 2015, 6:05 pm

    Another piece of the media wall has fallen. TruthDig editor Robert Scheer has apparently dropped his emotional reluctance to tackle Israel specifically. Instead of general rants (intelligently done) against “empire”, columnist Chris Hedges is now focusing on Israel directly. Yesterday TruthDig had two articles (on the same day!) directly aimed at Israel’s crimes.

    One is a detailed exposure of the extensive efforts emanating from headquarters in Israel to savage BDS activists, by Max Blumenthal and Julia Carmel.
    http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/exposed_pro-israel_modern_day_mccarthyites_20151001

    The other is an excellent discussion by Hedges and professor Sabah Alnasseri on the roots of ISIS. Hedges compares it to the establishment of Israel, and points out Israel’s central role in generating today’s violence in the Middle East.
    http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/days_of_revolt_with_chris_hedges_isis_the_new_israel_20151001

  4. ziusudra
    ziusudra on October 3, 2015, 5:33 am

    Greetings,
    Netanyahu not only whips out the Cherry Tomato, but says God gave them Palestine!
    The UN represents all 185 (?) Nations with all kinds of Religions.
    The so called Abrahamic Religions represent only 24% of Mankind!
    What are the other 76% of Mankind to make of such nonsense? How can a modern Institution get around such idiocy coming to change & justice with int’l law?
    History shows that the Shem Semites were absent from Jerusalem most of their existence! History shows that they seldom spoke their Canaanite dialect Hebrew most of their existence. History shows that today’s Citizens are 70% European DNA!
    ziusudra
    PS History Shows that their Claims are Biblically based assumptions having more to do with mythological aspects.

  5. emmh
    emmh on October 3, 2015, 6:27 am

    I don’t agree. I think the NYT article was definitely on the side of the Palestinians. I am sorry that “unceasing expansion of settlements” was only the third reason cited for the timetable’s breakdown—or the implication that the first two occurred in a vacuum. I am sorry that NYT support for Abbas always appeases “both sides”—presumably because one side will overwhelm the editor with phone calls, emails and letters if not (I’ve worked in a newsroom). But what I’m really sorry about is that the last Israeli leader they think really wanted peace died in 1995. Because that’s really why the editorial board believes Mr. Abbas is an acutely bitter man. It’s not vicious; it’s just sad.

    • eljay
      eljay on October 3, 2015, 9:07 am

      || emmh: … I think the NYT article was definitely on the side of the Palestinians. … ||

      Of course it was. It stated that Palestinians committed “brutal terrorism” while Israelis were “tough Israeli pioneers”.

      It stated that Palestinians engaged in “suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism, intifadas, rocket barrages” while Israelis engaged in “unceasing expansion of settlements”.

      It made no mention whatsoever of the fact that Israel:
      – has been stealing, occupying and colonizing Palestinian land for almost 70 years;
      – has been oppressing, torturing and killing Palestinians for almost 70 years;
      – has been committing (war) crimes (including terrorism and ethnic cleansing) with impunity for almost 70 years;
      – refuses to end its occupation and colonization of Palestine; and
      – refuses to honour its obligations under international law (including RoR of Israeli refugees).

      I hope the NYT doesn’t get in trouble for writing such a rabidly pro-Palestinian article!

    • Donald
      Donald on October 3, 2015, 9:53 am

      It is critical of the Israelis and they do show some sympathy with Abbas, but the NYT has always shown some sympathy for Palestinians– however, they always do it couched in so many qualifications and caveats it boils down to nothing, given that they don’t question in any fundamental way the support the US gives Israel. If the Palestinians restarted a suicide bombing campaign you can bet every cent you have that the NYT would be outraged, but the killing of 500 Palestinian children and every other Israeli atrocity is referenced by the phrase ” military clashes” .

      Your standards for support of Palestinians are extremely low. I think you are comparing the NYT editors to the attitudes you might find in people who think the NYT is anti-Israel. By that standard they look good, but why should that be the standard?

Leave a Reply