by Richard Baehr
When U.S. President
Barack Obama wants the Jewish community to sit up and listen to what he
thinks about Israel and the Middle East, he regularly does two things.
One is to call in Jeffrey Goldberg, a writer for Bloomberg View and The
Atlantic, to interview him on the subject. The second is to let The New
York Times know what's fit to print in their news stories and especially
their op-eds and editorials about the subject. Of course, the White
House need not issue directives to writers or editors at The Times,
though for all I know it might. An interview with Jeffrey Goldberg will
convey the message and do the trick. So too will comments the president
makes in public. One thing you will never find is any space between
Barack Obama's stated views on Israel and those of the staff of The New
York Times opinion pages in the days and weeks that follow.
Last week, just as
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was flying to the United
States to meet with Obama, and speak at the annual American Israel
Public Affairs Committee convention, the White House invited Goldberg
back in to set the stage before Netanyahu might seize it from him. The
text of the conversation was released as the AIPAC conference was
starting up.
Even Goldberg, a fan of
the president, and a journalist more than happy to see and present the
president in the best light as a true friend of Israel (one who knows
better than Israel's elected leaders and the Israeli voters what is
really best for them), seemed to think the president stepped over the line this time.
"I took it to be a
little bit of a veiled threat, to be honest," Goldberg said. "It's
almost up there with, you know, nice little Jewish state you got there,
I'd hate to see something happen to it."
As always, the
president was unhappy that Israel had built new housing units in Judea
and Samaria and Jerusalem in the prior year, though none of this was
prohibited under any existing international agreement, any agreement
between Israel and the Palestinians, or even any understanding with the
United States. The count of new housing units goes up one year, down the
next, and always the refrain is the same -- they are an obstacle to
peace. In fact, they are regularly described by self-proclaimed true
friends of Israel as the crucial obstacle to peace.
Of course, Israel
removed all 9,000 Israelis living in the Gaza Strip and all Israeli
forces from the area, without seemingly removing any obstacles to peace
between Hamas and Israel or for that matter, the Palestinian Authority
and Israel.
The president also
spoke of demographic realities that presumably were becoming less
favorable to Israel over time. However, a sharply rising Israeli birth
rate, a rapidly declining Arab birth rate in Israel as well as in Judea
and Samaria, and the use of more accurate population estimates
for the Palestinian population, have enabled convincing arguments to be
made that Israel would be able to sustain a significant Jewish majority
(close to two-thirds) even if Arabs in Judea and Samaria were given citizenship at some point.
The president never
speaks of obstacles to peace that are provided by Israel's supposed
partner for peace -- the Palestinian Authority. In fact, the president
pointed out to Goldberg that Israel did not want to miss the chance to
negotiate a peace agreement with Mahmoud Abbas, the quintessential
moderate Arab leader in the eyes of all those in the conventional-wisdom
camp. The government of the moderate Abbas was of course still
demanding a right of return for 5 million descendants of fewer than
50,000 living refugees from the 1948 war, certainly not a deal killer
(nor an obstacle to peace). Abbas and his emissaries were absolute in
their rejection of the demand by Israel for the Palestinian Authority to
recognize Israel as a Jewish state (while demanding a Judenrein
Palestinian state next door). This too was not an obstacle. The fact
that the PA was working with every nongovernmental organization it could
find in Europe and elsewhere who would make trouble for or make demands
of Israel, encouraging the worldwide boycott, divestment and sanctions
movement against Israel, and constantly inciting its own population
while honoring murderers of Jews, were also not obstacles that anyone
need be concerned with -- not Obama certainly. And of course, if Obama
is not concerned, why should Israel be, since Obama knows best?
The president told
Goldberg that it is becoming more difficult to defend Israel at the U.N.
and with foreign leaders. Goldberg says it is an open question whether
Obama has in fact become unwilling anymore to do so.
"It was, look, I want
to help you, but you're not helping me help you, and, therefore, there's
only so much political capital I'm going to go spend in the U.N., with
the EU, with the Arab League, on your behalf," Goldberg said. "I think
it was all couched very carefully but it's there and certainly the
government in Israel feels like it's there."
When asked to describe
the relationship between Obama and Netanyahu, Goldberg quipped, "Oh,
it's just filled with joy, very clearly."
Despite the interview's
release, the talks between Obama and Netanyahu were nonetheless a bit
less frosty than at times in the past five years. But that may be
because Netanyahu has learned to ignore the White House hectoring and
instead make his and Israel's case in every public setting in America,
to people who have an open mind and are, unlike the president or the New
York Times editors and staff, supportive of Israel's right to exist as a
Jewish state, with secure borders and with the Iranian nuclear threat
removed.
The New York Times
editorial pages this week were an indication of how complete is the
subservient loyalty of Times editors to the great leader's wishes. In an
editorial titled "Israel's Choice"
appeared this gem describing Secretary of State John Kerry's nonstop
effort to get both sides to agree to certain framework principles for
continued negotiations:
"But there are fears
that the principles might tilt toward Israel, which would mean the final
negotiations simply won't get off the ground."
In other words, The
Times (meaning Obama) is afraid that the secretary of state has been
listening too much to Israel, and that is a problem. While Kerry pursues
his shuttle diplomacy, the president golfs, attends fundraisers, and
stays tuned to ESPN Sports Center and then undermines his own
secretary's efforts, presumably to set the stage for blaming Israel if talks collapse.
Nothing in the Times
editorial suggests that leaning to accept the Palestinian position would
be an unacceptable tilt. In fact, The Times argues that the Palestinian
position on Jerusalem is more reasonable than the Kerry framework that
someone leaked to The Times. So too, The Times is unhappy with Israel's
demand for recognition as a Jewish state, which would prejudice the
Palestinians demand for a right of return for 5 million non-refugees to
Israel.
The Times position on refugees was spelled out in a debate
conducted online between Daniel Gordis and Lara Friedman of American
this week. The introduction to the debate again provides all the context
one needs for how The Times approaches the current conflict:
"Israel's expansion of
settlements in the occupied territories has been an obstacle to the
two-state solution, considered the most likely hope for peace with the
Palestinians.
The boycott, divestment
and sanctions movement has called for worldwide disassociation with
Israel to end the occupation. Even many supporters of the two-state
solution, though, condemn the movement because it attacks Israel itself
and supports the right of refugees to return to homes in Israel that
were theirs before its creation.
But what about a
boycott of the territories, and all activity within them, to end the
occupation? Would that be in the best interest of Israel and the most
likely path to peace?"
One could spend many
words deconstructing this purported neutral introduction to the debate,
but two items stand out. The Times believes that expansion of
settlements has been an obstacle to the two-state solution. Case closed
on that one. And then the latest addition to The Times "down the middle"
approach: The Palestinian refugees are only trying to return to homes
that were theirs before the creation of Israel. When pressed on this
issue of refugees versus descendants, the Times editor who wrote the
introductory note, Nicholas Fox, explained that he was only following
the accepted international definition of refugees:
"I believe that our
reference to refugees is in line with definition of the United Nations
Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. The agency's website
refers to its work with 'four generations of Palestine refugees, defined
as "persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the
period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of
livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict." The descendants of
Palestine refugee males, including legally adopted children, are also
eligible for registration. ... Today, some 5 million Palestine refugees
are eligible for UNRWA services.'"
Assume that one accepts
this "follow the UNWRA" script. How exactly are these 5 million people
who are entitled to "register" as refugees, returning to homes in Israel
that were theirs before the creation of Israel? How indeed, since they
were not alive at the time!
One certainly does not want to be
seen as unduly critical of a newspaper that promises to present "all
the news that's fit to print," but is The Times, like Obama, maybe, just
possibly, tilting towards the Palestinians?
Richard Baehr
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=7629
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment