- Let's see, Israel is continually building illegal (by
the standards of international law) settlements on the West Bank on property
seized from Palestinians. Israel's construction in East Jerusalem essentially
prevents a two-state peace agreement with the Palestinians, who expect
to control that territory. The Obama administration essentially overlooked
these actions until Israel publicly announced plans for new construction
in East Jerusalem at the very time when Vice President Biden was visiting
Israel. And, after all of this, who does the Washington Post criticize
for belligerency-Obama! The "American chastising of Israel invariably
prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian
and other Arab leaders," the Post pontificates.
-
- http://tinyurl.com/israelquarrel
-
- No, we certainly wouldn't want the Palestinians to make
such "elevated demands" as the right to land that Israel has
taken from them!
-
- The Post is very much disturbed about "Mr. Obama's
quickness to bludgeon the Israeli government." Yes, certainly criticism,
when Israel is the one criticized, must be equated with bullying and beating.
And the Post goes on to claim that "He is not the first president
to do so." Presumably, in the convoluted imagination of the Washington
Post's editorialist, American presidents have been walloping poor little
Israel for years. But the Post is not about to cry over allegedly victimized
Israel but points out that "tough tactics don't always work."
Yes, a few critical words-when directed at Israel--certainly represent
inappropriate "tough tactics!"
-
- One would think, however, that in any real effort to
get tough with Israel, the United States would go beyond strong words,
and actually threaten to reduce its physical support for the Jewish state.
But such a tough tactic presumably transcends the limits of the Post's
imagination-or is just not allowed to be considered. Of course, where
Israel's Middle East enemies are concerned, the Post has not been loath
to support economic sanctions, bombing, and invasions.
-
- As a result of his purportedly belligerent stance last
year, "Mr. Obama's poll ratings in Israel plunged to the single digits."
The Post continues: "The president is perceived by many Israelis
as making unprecedented demands on their government while overlooking the
intransigence of Palestinian and Arab leaders." Obama certainly wouldn't
want to lose the support of the Israeli people. But exactly what country
does Obama represent? And what country does the Washington Post think
that he should represent? Interestingly, while the Post expresses concern
about the Israelis unhappiness with Obama, it conversely is upset about
the US actually seeming to appeal to the interests of the Palestinians
and Arabs, which might cause them to make "elevated demands."
-
- Let me point out the overriding significance of what
the Washington Post has written. These words did not come from the Christian
Right, the neoconservatives, AIPAC, or some other entity known to be biased
in favor of the Jewish state. Rather, they came from the most influential
newspaper in the United States (along with the New York Times), which trumpets
its objectivity. This is the authoritative voice of the media establishment.
This is what people in the know are expected to believe.
-
- Best,
-
- Stephen Sniegoski
- Transparent Cabal Website:
- http://home.comcast.net/~transparentcabal/
-
- Amazon listing of The Transparent Cabal:
- http://tiny.cc/zNV06
-
- Here is the Washington Post Editorial...
- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031502667.html
-
- http://tinyurl.com/israelquarrel
|
