Tuesday, June 29, 2010


By Schmoel Yitzhak

Israel expecting a square deal from the New York Times when it comes to reportage -- or opinion columns -- is as likely as Saudi Arabia launching a free-oil pipeline to Tel Aviv.

Usually, I wince at least once in disgust while reading a piece in the no-longer-newspaper-of-record.

That's because The Times generally limits its coverage to one story when it does recognize Israel's "write" to exist.

But last Sunday (June 27) the daily whose motto is "All The News That's Fit To Print" gave me a few fits in print.

Not one but two features dealt with Israel; one a magazine question-answer single-pager about Tzipi Livni and the other another one of Thomas Friedman's endless prescriptions for Middle East peace.

Each in its own way betrayed The Times' anti-Israel agenda in so blatant a manner that one wonders just who the editors believe they are kidding.

Let's start with Deborah Solomon's "Questions For Livni."

Right off the bat, her initial question is a distortion of the truth. Here's exactly what she put to Livni.

"The Israeli security cabinet just voted to ease the three-year blockade of Gaza in the wake of the tragic naval attack on the Mavi Marmara by Israeli commandos. What does that mean in practical terms?"

For one thing there was nothing "tragic" about the Marmara incident other than the fact that what was meant to be a peaceful boarding operation was turned into a vicious, planned assault by armed terrorists.

The Times' interrogator conveniently forgot about that.

Nor was it -- as Solomon put it -- "a naval attack." No more than a U.S. Coast Guard border patrol cutter intercepting what would appear to be a ship illegally sailing into American waters.

The Israeli Navy did not attack; it peacefully -- after innumerable warnings -- boarded the vessel which was no more than an Arab-Turkish public relations ploy.

In one questions, The Times managed two journalistic strikes against its integrity; or whatever is left of it.

Following up with her initial distorted query, Solomon wonders if "Israel might do more to show concern for the Palestinian people and the problems they face?"

Had The Times' inquisitor done her research, she would know that Israel is sending large truckload after large truckload of supplies to Gaza which -- irony of ironies -- is pledged to destroy The Jewish State. What other civilized country would continue pouring aid to people headed by a group of terrorists?

And while she's at it, Solomon might recall that billions of dollars of aid have poured into Yassir Arafat's coffers as well as the current Palestinian leaders only to find its way not to the rank-and-file "sufferers" but rather the corrupt leadership.

As every Israeli -- and most clear-thinking Middle East analysts -- must know by now, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu long ago declared his support of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict. And this in defiance of many f his Likud party supporters.

Despite this, Solomon posits a query stating that Bib has a "longstanding aversion to a two-state solution."

Once more, homework was not a part of dull Deborah's interview preparation.

Error followed upon error. To wit: "You lost to him (Bibi) in the race for prime minister...."

Wrong. Livni actually garnered more votes than Bibi, 29 to 27.

Easily the most egregious sin came at the end when the leader of the Israeli opposition noted that "when I die" she will leave her children a strong state of Israel. Anyone who read would know that the dynamic leading lady of Israeli politics is as fit as anyone could hope to be at her (middle age).

Which inspired Solomon's absurd question: "Are you dying?" (Tzipi's perfect squelch was, "It's not part of my plan for now."

As for Friedman, who regularly appears to be Barack Obama's paid, political Middle East advocate, he once again insists that Bibi must take the peace initiative if any settlement is in to eventually come into view.

Of course, what the clueless Times' columnist is overlooking is that every initiative taken by the Israeli leader is met with a "so-what" on the Arab side.

What Friedman might have wondered out loud is who produced the last realistic peace initiative since Anwar Sadat -- nobody.

But what can we expect from the Times columnist who employs the most anti-government sources such as the agenda-paper, Haaretz, or some Bibi-hater at Hebrew University, Moshe Halberstal, who Friedman dignifies with the title"philosopher."

That's Times-ese for Obama-lover and those who have studied the American president's actions toward Israel understand that Obama is a synonym for undercutting Netanyahu -- and Israel!

To put it bluntly, Israel will never get a square deal from the contemporary Times or the standing American chief of state, one of whose leading generals exposed his leader's empty suit!

No comments:

Post a Comment