web analytics
April 27, 2015 / 8 Iyar, 5775
At a Glance
InDepth
Sponsored Post


Selective Indignation, Part 1,000

It seems that whenever the Israeli government announces new settlement construction in the West Bank, even in areas that in all probability will remain part of Israel under any final agreement, the news is typically greeted as a frontal assault on whatever negotiations are being pursued by whoever happens to be the American secretary of state at the time.

On the other hand, no such alarm is sounded in response to Palestinian recalcitrance on issues Israel has declared essential to its security.

This selective indignation permeates the international community’s approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict and is reflected in the way much of the media covers that conflict.

Last month, after the Israeli government published plans for new construction, the State Department promptly repeated its longstanding refrain that the settlements were “illegitimate” and that “It is never helpful to have steps taken that are not conducive to our efforts to move forward on peace.”

True to form, The New York Times titled its report on the development “In Blow to Peace Effort, Israel Publishes Plans for New Housing in Settlements.” The article, by Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren, was just barely more objective than the provocative headline:

The Israeli government on Friday published plans to build 1,400 housing units in Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, a move the chief Palestinian negotiator condemned as a “slap” to Secretary of State John Kerry’s intense push for a Middle East peace deal….

It continues a pattern that began with the peace talks last summer, in which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has struggled to please his politically complex coalition government by both engaging in the talks and continuing to expand settlements, something the Palestinians and many world powers contend undermines the prospects for a two-state solution.

Ms. Rudoren added, presumably to make sure everyone got the point, the following quote from an interview with the chief Palestinian negotiator, Saeb Erekat: “Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu sent a message to Mr. Kerry today, and the message reads ‘do not continue your peace efforts’…. They know very well that this destroys the peace process.”

Compare this with what followed last week’s issuance of new, non-negotiable red lines by the Palestinian Authority that negatively impacted almost all of Israel’s core concerns: Israeli military and civilian withdrawal “from all Palestinian territories occupied in 1967” within three to four years; release of all Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails; explicit reference to East Jerusalem as the capital of the Palestinian state; resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194 (i.e., the so-called right of return); and refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s spokesman, Nabil Abu Rueineh, said that “without these principles there can be no just and comprehensive peace in the region.”

If there were ever a real body blow to the peace effort, this would be it. Yet the State Department didn’t release a statement. And The New York Times didn’t report the story.

In fact, the last thing the Times reported that even touched on Palestinian rejectionism came two weeks earlier in a story about Mr. Abbas’s interview with the newspaper during which the topics discussed included the continued Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state and Israel’s demand that its forces be stationed in the West Bank, beyond the territory it will retain, in order to police the peace.

The Times story, again by Ms. Rudoren, was headlined, rather benignly, “Palestinian Leader Seeks NATO Force in Future State,” highlighting the Palestinians’ preference that NATO troops rather than the Israeli military monitor the peace.

Not only was the defining matter of acceptance of Israel as the Jewish homeland relegated to secondary status, but Mr. Abbas’s emphatic “This is out of the question” in response to the Jewish homeland question was not reflected in the headline. Equally telling, though, was the rather schmoozy, schmaltzy tone of the piece:

Mr. Abbas, 78, was relaxed and confident, if not quite optimistic, during the interview, sprinkling his politics with bits of humor. It took place in an outer sitting room where the Palestinian president has met delegations of left-leaning American Jews and foreign dignitaries and where, he recalled, the former American peace envoy George J. Mitchell said of the Israelis before departing in 2011, “They foiled me.”

He sipped sweet tea and then strong coffee, twice using a small buzzer to summon an aide who brought a single cigarette. He spoke in English, occasionally leaning on two colleagues for translation. (It took a few minutes to decipher whether Mr. Mitchell had said “fooled,” “failed,” or “foiled” – Mr. Abbas joked that all three applied.)

Clearly, there is a presumptive legitimacy ascribed to the Palestinian positions while Israel is seen as trying to push the envelope and take as much away from the Palestinians it can get away with.

Why this is so is nothing short of mystifying, especially when one considers that Mr. Abbas can’t bring himself to recognize even a future truncated Israel as a Jewish state, or that he continues to honor as heroic martyrs Palestinian killers of Jewish men, women and children, or that even if he were inclined to do so it is highly doubtful he could ever carry out any of his commitments or survive a confrontation with Hamas.

About the Author:


If you don't see your comment after publishing it, refresh the page.

Our comments section is intended for meaningful responses and debates in a civilized manner. We ask that you respect the fact that we are a religious Jewish website and avoid inappropriate language at all cost.

If you promote any foreign religions, gods or messiahs, lies about Israel, anti-Semitism, or advocate violence (except against terrorists), your permission to comment may be revoked.

One Response to “Selective Indignation, Part 1,000”

  1. Stuart Kaufman says:

    Netanyahu should really smack Kerry in the mouth, and be done with this nonsense.

Comments are closed.

Current Top Story
This is what is left of the bus that was firebombed Saturday night.
Shhhhhhh! Police Now Say Bus was Firebombed Saturday Night
Latest Indepth Stories
World Zionist Congress elections end April 30.

Groups promoting anti-Israel/anti-Jewish BDS right on their websites are running in the WZC election

Former New York Governor George Pataki

Pataki is the last Republican Governor to win a majority of Jewish votes.

President Obama

Obama’s desire to be “fair” enables Iran to get nuclear weapons which will threaten global security

israeli-american flags

All GOP candidates will continue seeking – and praying – for Jewish money with greater success.

The one reason to make Aliyah outweighs all the arguments not to move to Israel.

“We returned to this Land not in order to be murdered, or uprooted. We came here to be replanted!”

I don’t fear for the future of our people because I believe Yeshiva University has created an “Iron Dome” of Jewish leadership

Poland’s great Jewish cities where Jewish life had once flourished and thrived, were now desolate

Chief rabbi, Rav Dovid Lau, stated that the Torah community’s turnout in the WZO election is vital.

Iran has at its core the same ideology as that of ISIS but, inaccurately, is thought a lesser threat

An early Yom Ha’atzmaut gathering for Israel’s 67th birthday with Pres. Rivlin of Israel and guests

Israel’s Memorial Day shouldn’t be a day of mourning, it’s a day to honor, not another Holocaust Day

God’s 3 part promise for Israel: to the Avot; a plentiful land; the eventual return home by all Jews

A committed Religious Zionist, he was a sought-after adviser on Zionist affairs around the world.

More important, Mr. Obama is simply acceding to Iran’s position on the timing of the lifting of sanctions.

More Articles from Editorial Board

A committed Religious Zionist, he was a sought-after adviser on Zionist affairs around the world.

More important, Mr. Obama is simply acceding to Iran’s position on the timing of the lifting of sanctions.

For our community, Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy record will doubtless attract the most attention. And it is a most interesting one.

He went on to say that the United States would defend Israel if it were “attacked by any state.”

In their zechus may we all come to appreciate that life is a fleeting gift and resolve to spend every precious moment of it as if it were the last.

A worthy idea any way you look at it.

If nothing really changes in the hearts and minds of the Palestinians, is Israel obligated to provide them and its other adversaries launching pads for attacks?

The United States placed enormous pressure on Israel to relinquish its gains, which Prime Minister Ben-Gurion did with great reluctance.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/editorial/selective-indignation-part-1000/2014/02/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: