Jewish-owned NYTimes Pontificates

In its editorial, Palestinians and the U.N., the New York Times expresses

...sympathy for their [the "Palestinians"'] yearning and their frustration. For years, they have been promised a negotiated solution — President Obama called for a peace deal by September — and they are still empty-handed.

But whose fault is the failed negotiations?

Who rejected the Dayan Plan?  The Allon Plan?  Who agreed to the Three Noes of Khartoum?  Who rejected Begin's Autonomy Plan?  Who screwed up the Oslo Accords?  Who wouldn't take advantage of Netanyahu's Construction Moratorium?

The paper does admit that in going to the UN,

...the consequences could be profoundly damaging for all involved.

Why?

Because even if they get recognition of a state

...it would be in name only. After the initial exhilaration, Palestinians would be even more alienated, while extremists would try to exploit that disaffection.

Not that they deserve a state rather thatn a political framework of another type.

The best way, likely the only way, to head off this debacle is with the start of serious negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. The two sides haven’t even been in the same room together since September 2010.

The paper annoys in repeating a canard (which they actually correct, mostly, later on) that

Benjamin Netanyahu, has used any excuse he can find (regional turmoil, the weakness of his coalition government) to avoid negotiations. He has blustered and balked at President Obama’s prodding.

and worse, for NY Jewish liberals,

Republican leaders in Washington — who seem mainly interested in embarrassing Mr. Obama — have encouraged his resistance.

But the editorial writer picks up his magnifying glass and sees that

Arab leaders haven’t given the Israelis any incentive to compromise. The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, seemed to give up on diplomacy when Mr. Obama could not deliver a promised settlement freeze. We see no sign that he has thought even one step beyond the U.N. vote.

See, a bit of even-handedness doesn't hurt.
Returning to the essence of peace, the NYT informs us that

The core element: a Palestinian state based on pre-1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps and guarantees for Israel’s security. In May, President Obama endorsed that idea, which is widely accepted as the basis of any deal. At the time, Mr. Netanyahu scored points with hard-liners in Israel — and Republican lawmakers played the same game here — denouncing those boundaries as “indefensible.”

And they are.  Even American military experts agreed.

Here now comes the new interventionism of progressive humanists:

...To have any chance of inducing the Palestinians to drop their statehood bid — and finally move the peace process forward — the United States and its partners should put a map and a deal on the table, with a timeline for concluding negotiations and a formal U.N. statehood vote. The Security Council and the Arab League need to throw their full weight behind it.

And in the meantime

BEIRUT (AP) -- Syrian troops fired on mourners at a funeral and raided an eastern city Sunday, killing at least 59 people in an intensifying government crackdown on protesters...More than 300 people have died in the past week...Sunday's worst violence was in the eastern city of Deir el-Zour, where at least 42 people were killed...The government's crackdown on mostly peaceful, unarmed protesters demanding political reforms and an end to the Assad family's 40-year rule has left more than 1,700 dead since March, according to activists and human rights groups...

Not to mention closer to home, Hamastan in Gaza, rockets, PA incitement, summer camp indoctrination, et., etc., etc.

Such a peaceful Middle East.

^