Posted on 07/31/2009 11:10:26 PM PDT by tedbel
The New York Times recently editorialized on The Settlements Issue
Apparently the NYT is preparing the ground for Obama to back away from his absolutist demands and claim victory when negotiations start. I disagree. Had Obama never attempted to bring down the Netanyahu government by using settlements as a wedge issue, negotiations would have had a much better chance of getting started. Obama's attack on Israel has set them back.
Less visibly, but we hope just as assertively, the administration is pressing the Palestinians and other Arab leaders to take concrete steps to demonstrate their commitment to a peace deal. Those must clearly contribute to Israel’s sense of security.
Underlying this view is that the only peace the Americans are seeking is the one offered by the Saudi Plan. Israel is serious about peace but not the Saudi Plan. The NYT is suggesting if Israel is not prepared to accept the Saudi Plan, she is not interested in peace. In one sense it is right because there is no other peace deal that the Arabs would accept.
The NYT is suggesting that all that is necessary is for the Arabs to contribute to Israel's sense of security. No way. Israel wants more than a sense of security. Netanyahu has said so but the NYT and the Obama administration ignore this believing Israel must be forced to accept the Saudi Plan
(Excerpt) Read more at israpundit.com ...
NYT: Not serious about the facts!
Israel, the American government and its willful tool, the mainstream media, are no longer your friends. They are, in fact, your enemies, and they should not be trusted at all. Do what you have to do to survive, or you won’t.
NYT: KarlInOhio not serious about weight loss as shown by his complete rejection of having his leg removed to get to his ideal weight.
NYT: Israel not serious about peace
Israel: NYT not serious about journalism
Then again neither is anyone else serious about it just look at the track record.
Not serious about peace … they are serious about survival.
There will be no peace till the AC brings it about.
And then only for a short time.
Won’t be long.....at the most 10-20 years
Well it’s plain stupid to ask Israel to negotiate with 3 different factions all claiming to represent the whole. There can be no “peace” until there is an official organization that will take responsibility for the Arab side of the border. American policy should be square on forcing Palestinian unity, and Lebanese unity for that matter. Until then, we should have no interest except perhaps trying to prevent war that interrupts American economic interest... that can be handled mainly by diplomacy.
Exactly. Maybe if the other side was more serious about not bombing women and children they could start talking about peace.
I think Israel is smart enough to know that the Slammies are not capable of keeping peace promises, today’s Egypt maybe excepted. So it needs to be feared, that it will put the hammer down on whoever dares to pepper it with missiles or helps to slip suicide bombers in.
Right, but the Arabs are?
I didn’t know the NYT was into comic relief.
“.....Obama for demanding...”
Demand until you turn white, Obama.
If Israel wants to survive, and they do, they should ignore anything that this arrogant bug has to say.
Thanks Fred Nerks!
Arab-Stolen Torahs Returned to Jerusalem Synagogue
IsraelNN.com | 07/28/09 | by Hillel Fendel
Posted on 08/01/2009 2:44:42 AM PDT by Fred Nerks
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2305823/posts
When this process is completed, there will be peace in the middle east.
When no one dares attack Israel, for fear of guaranteed annihilation, they will have peace.
Hey Bibi, Godspeed, and get-er-done.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.