Friday, March 27, 2009

"Partner for Peace" or Partner of the New York Times?

The NYTimes' editorial insinuates he can't be trusted.


...He said that his government will be a “partner for peace.”

“I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace,” he said.

We would like very much to take Mr. Netanyahu’s words at face value, and it would be a lot easier to do that if he had not worked so assiduously to build his reputation as a hard-liner with deep misgivings about the very peace process he now claims to be willing to embrace...He still cannot bring himself to endorse a two-state solution — which we believe must be part of any serious regional peace effort"

But, wait, is the New York Times missing something?

"We believe". Ah. They believe.

I don't. Neither, it seems, does Bibi.

Could it be, perhaps, that the current peace process is not the way to peace?

Should it be either rejected, modified or alternatives searched for to achieve a better peace than Oslo and the plain Two-State solution? One that doesn't encourage terror, doesn't weaken Israel's long-term security nor undermine its historic and legal national claims?

Could the point Netanyahu is making is that Oslo is not the only path to peace and, for one to be a partner for peace, one should seek something that better works?

If peace is truly the goal and not some unadulterated anti-Israel agenda, well, who cares about the sanctity of a process?


Anonymous said...

Are there no detox centers , in the Poconos perhaps, for liberal (read most) Jews long-addicted to The New York Times. If there are none, maybe it would be a good idea to establish some.And yes, a winter New York Times detox center in Boca Raton.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous - So you think Israel was void of inhabitants before the Palestinians moved in? You think Arabs didn't steal the lands from the previous inhabitants and use "Palestinians" to colonize it and displace the previous inhabitants? If Palestinians were there first, then how is it that the "Dome of the Rock" is built on top of the Second Jewish Temple? History didn't start 50 years ago but long before that. Isreal isn't their's because of some Bibilical claims but because they have been there since 1200 BC. What one finds when "rolling back the clock" is a succession of conquerors and occupiers (Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, Ottomans) and the common thread through it all is that the Israelites and their descendants were the conquered, occupied, and displaced (the source of the "Jewish Diaspora") "indigenous" people.

g said...

Muslims, Jews and Christians lived in Palestine in peace, babysitting each other children. Until the Zionist decided that the land belongs to them, God gave it to them, or British give it to them, they made up bunch of excuses to come back and kill, starve, oppress. That's where the conflict started escalate.

YMedad said...

Oh my Galia, such a poor knowledge of history.