.

Thursday, September 22, 2011

NYT's latest push for "Palestine"

Here's the New York Times doing its usual slanted reporting in a report by Neil MacFarquhar:
The original two-state solution designed to establish separate countries for Jews and Arabs anticipated the day that both would seek United Nations membership.

“When the independence of either the Arab or the Jewish State as envisaged in this plan has become effective,” begins a paragraph deep in General Assembly Resolution 181 from November 1947, then “sympathetic consideration” should be given to the application.

Israel became a member in May 1949. The Palestinians have announced their intention to submit an application to the Security Council, setting the stage this week for the most dramatic annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly in years.
And why has it taken nearly 64 years? Could it be because the Arab world could not then - and cannot now - accept the idea of a Jewish state? Could it be that for most of that time they chose war instead of peace? Could it be because on the threshold of a peace treaty in 2000, the Palestinian Arab leadership chose a terror war instead that killed thousands?

Are those facts not relevant when trying to paint a false equivalence between Israel and "Palestine"?
The Palestinians see the membership application as a last-ditch attempt to preserve the two-state solution in the face of ever-encroaching Israeli settlements, as well as a desperate move to shake up the negotiations that they feel have achieved little after 20 years of American oversight.
Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria have not been "encroaching" on any Arab owned land. They have been building within their own boundaries.

Since Oslo, the Palestinian Arabs have gained control over Gaza, they have gained autonomy over practically all of their citizens, and they have gained economically as a result of agreements with Israel. One would think that a reporter could offset how they "feel" with a fact or two.
In the past, as long as Arab despots endorsed American control over the peace process, officials in Washington usually ignored how they treated their citizens.
Excuse me? Is MacFarquhar saying that Arab repression is somehow the fault of the American role in the peace process? I'm sorry, I didn't know that Syria and Tunisia's and Libya's support for Oslo influenced US policy. Perhaps Neil can enlighten us someday.
[Palestinian Arabs] remain under occupation, the number of Jewish settlers has tripled to around 600,000, and they have far less freedom of movement in the territories ostensibly meant to become their state.
Saying that Area A or Gaza is under occupation is obviously false. Occupation means that the occupier can change the government, and clearly it cannot. They indeed have less freedom of movement than they did before the first intifada and before the second intifada. I wonder why that might be? The number of Jews in Judea and Samaria did triple since 1992, from about 111,000 to over 300,000. If you include "east" Jerusalem, which of course the NY Times is, the numbers have not even doubled (282,000 to 517,000.) It is not close to 600,000.

And, as the reporter no doubt knows, Israel is not going to freeze construction of areas that "everyone knows" will always remain part of Israel in Jerusalem's suburbs.

 The newspaper of record cannot keep basic facts straight.

 (h/t Ian)