In remarkably blunt comments, Mr. Obama said that he had not heard a persuasive case for how Israel survives both as a democracy and a Jewish state absent a negotiated two-state solution, since in Israel and the West Bank “there are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on.”Funny - I was not aware that Israel was negotiating against the creation of a Palestinian Arab state. Every single detail about Israeli negotiations since 2000 showed that they agree with having such a state, but disagree over borders, "refugees," Jerusalem and so forth. Any Palestinian Arab state, no matter what the borders, would end the "demographic problem." So why are people who supposedly care about peace keep pretending that Israel is against a two-state solution and using this nonsensical argument?
He also warned that given Israel’s aggressive settlement construction — 2,534 housing units were begun in 2013 compared with 1,133 the previous year — Palestinians may soon decide that a contiguous state is impossible and America’s ability to help manage the consequences will be limited.Can anyone at the NYT give us an estimate of much land was taken from Palestinian Arabs for these 2,534 housing units? My estimate is that it is approximately zero square meters, give or take zero. Virtually all of the housing built since 1990 has been within existing settlement blocs. The fact that the NYT doesn't know these basic facts shows just how ignorant it is.
But here comes the doozy:
Negotiators have largely kept silent on details of the talks. But there are fears that the principles might tilt toward Israel, which would mean the final negotiations simply won’t get off the ground.
In the universe inhabited by the New York Times, Palestinian Arab intransigence is not only expected - it is blamed on Israel! PalArab red lines are sacrosanct; Israel's are meant to be destroyed by US negotiators. Any negotiation that does not result in Israel's total capitulation to Palestinian Arab demands is unfairly tilted towards Israel.
This is the answer to the first question. The NYT isn't interested in a two-state solution. No, the Times wants Israel to surrender every single negotiating point, because Israel is assumed a priori to be in the wrong while Palestinian Arab demands that have nothing to do with them having their own independent state are righteous.
Not only that, but any appearance by the US that it might accept some of Israel's own demands as being reasonable - that it might pressure both sides to compromise - means, in the Times' bizarro world, that Palestinian intransigence is Israel's fault for having the gall to make demands to safeguard the security of the Jewish state.
It would be funny if the NYT was not still considered a mandatory religious text to be read every day for every self-respecting liberal, no matter how divorced from reality it is.
(h/t Yaacov Lozowick)