Today's Philadelphia Inquirer (AP) report on Netanyahu's White House visit
(below) emphasizes the critical remarks of the White House press secretary Josh
Earnest two hours after the actual visit. Those disapproving remarks
addressed Israel's plan to throw up 2,500 new units in East Jerusalem as well as
Israel's allowing Jewish settlers to move into Silwan in East Jerusalem.
(Shocker: the State Department also disapproves! Thank God it has never been up
to State to determine U.S. Israel policy!)
Frankly, I am also critical of those policies of the Israeli leadership.
However, I honestly don't know what to make of the Associated Press's editorial decision to frame Earnest's remarks as the foreground of the story and to cast the actual meeting of and remarks by the two leaders as merely the incidental background. Maybe it is a journalistically fair and objective reading by the AP that the administration's reproach -- voiced by the spokesman but absent from Obama's actual post-meeting public remarks -- merits treatment as the lead and totally dominant element of the report.
Or maybe that slant reflects either an interest in trumpeting U.S.-Israel disharmony or a choice to go with it as the most provocative and sensational way to bring attention to the report -- i.e., marketing.
Nevertheless, whatever drove the AP's take, the stark fact of Netanyahu's building plan is bad news for peace prospects. Which is not news at all to Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, as reported in the Boteach article below, Abbas spoke at the UN and showed right off the bat that he will not take a back seat to any "negotiating partner" when it comes to running his mouth with inflammatory invective and throwing said partner under the international bus. No doubt there were many in that UN audience who already saw the Gazans as victims of Israel's genocidal bloodthirst rather than as victims of Hamas's ruthless strategy of using them as human shields for launching sites and command posts.
One presumes that the members of the audience left the UN venue that day with the same views of the Gaza debacle that they'd arrived with, but maybe some there left a little more depressed about hopes for progress.
Abbas and Netanyahu deserve each other, but Israelis and Palestinians deserve better (some will say that they chose these guys, but dammit I do think I deserved better than Bush-Cheney). Netanyahu feeds red meat to his domestic right flank, and Abbas is no better, now appearing to have decided to move away from accommodation for peace and toward Hamas and confrontation/resistance. They both appear to be taking the cowardly route of shaking their fists at each other and thus bowing to the hatingest haters in their respective bases.
Abbas says to Netanyahu, "I spit on you and your plans!"
Netanyahu's reply, "Ha, I piss on your spit!!"
Abbas: "Oh, yeah?! I shit on your piss!!!"
This is where you look to Kurt Vonnegut for the concluding commentary, "And so it goes."
Nurturing a greater constituency for peace among the two populations looks like an impossibly daunting prospect. The Boteach article on Abbas's earlier speech at Cooper Union campus in New York doesn't touch at any point on finding common ground. Au contraire, it's about Jewish kids standing up to on-campus anatagonism toward Israel. Which is something I strongly support, but at the same time it's not altogether clear to me why so many New York college-age kids showed up to hear from Abbas. Boteach assumes that they are anti-Zionist, but he presents no evidence of that. The encounters he describes between his son and pro-Palestinians there sound like civil exchanges rather than hissing and spitting matches with BDS bullies. Absent evidence of an audience hostile to Israel, I would ask, how many in that audience were in fact pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli -- i.e., pro-peace? I don't know.
My grandfather Harry Yellin A''H, after whom I'm named, attended Cooper Union, where Abbas spoke. I'd love to know what in the world all this looks like from his vantage point. If he is truly resting in peace, you'd have to think that this world is far from his mind, but what do we know?
U.S. criticizes Israel’s new housing project
WASHINGTON — In a striking public rebuke, the Obama administration warned Israel on Wednesday that plans for a controversial new housing project in East Jerusalem would distance Israel from “even its closest allies” and raise questions about its commitment to seeking peace with Palestinians.
The harsh criticism came just hours after President
Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met at the White House.
Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said the president privately raised his concerns
with Netanyahu though the two leaders made no mention of the matter in their
public comments to reporters.
“This development will only draw condemnation from
the international community,” Earnest said. “It also would call into
question Israel’s ultimate commitment to a peaceful
negotiated settlement with the Palestinians.”
The new 2,500-unit project is contentious because it
would complete a band of Jewish areas that separate Jerusalem from nearby
Bethlehem. The United States has repeatedly criticized Israeli construction in
East Jerusalem, casting it as damaging to efforts to secure an elusive peace
accord with the Palestinians.
The White House also condemned what it called the
recent occupation of residential buildings in Silwan, an Arab neighborhood in
East Jerusalem where several hundred hard-line Israeli settlers have moved in
recent years. Earnest called the
occupation “provocative” and said it would “escalate tensions at a moment when
those tensions have already been high.”
Appearing before reporters earlier, Obama and
Netanyahu betrayed little of the U.S. displeasure projected by the White House
spokesman, as well as officials at the State Department. While the two
leaders have long had a tense relationship, each took a
polite and cordial tone in their brief public remarks.
Still, areas of discord were evident, most notably
Obama’s frustration with Palestinian civilian deaths in during the summer war in
Gaza and Israel’s wariness of U.S.-led nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Sitting alongside Netanyahu, Obama said leaders must
“find ways to change the status quo so that both Israel citizens are safe in
their own homes, and schoolchildren in their schools, from the
possibility of rocket fire but also that we don’t have the
tragedy of Palestinian children being killed as well.”
More than 2,100 Palestinians — the vast majority of
them civilians — and more than 70 Israelis were killed during the 50-day war in
Gaza.
Officials said much of Obama and Netanyahu’s private
discussions centered on Iran. The U.S. and its negotiating partners — Britain,
France, Germany, Russia, and China — have until Nov. 24 to reach a deal with
Iran on its nuclear program, and all sides say significant gaps remain.
From: This World: The Values Network info@thisworld.us
Subject: No holds barred: Abbas the moderate
Frankly, I am also critical of those policies of the Israeli leadership.
However, I honestly don't know what to make of the Associated Press's editorial decision to frame Earnest's remarks as the foreground of the story and to cast the actual meeting of and remarks by the two leaders as merely the incidental background. Maybe it is a journalistically fair and objective reading by the AP that the administration's reproach -- voiced by the spokesman but absent from Obama's actual post-meeting public remarks -- merits treatment as the lead and totally dominant element of the report.
Or maybe that slant reflects either an interest in trumpeting U.S.-Israel disharmony or a choice to go with it as the most provocative and sensational way to bring attention to the report -- i.e., marketing.
Nevertheless, whatever drove the AP's take, the stark fact of Netanyahu's building plan is bad news for peace prospects. Which is not news at all to Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, as reported in the Boteach article below, Abbas spoke at the UN and showed right off the bat that he will not take a back seat to any "negotiating partner" when it comes to running his mouth with inflammatory invective and throwing said partner under the international bus. No doubt there were many in that UN audience who already saw the Gazans as victims of Israel's genocidal bloodthirst rather than as victims of Hamas's ruthless strategy of using them as human shields for launching sites and command posts.
One presumes that the members of the audience left the UN venue that day with the same views of the Gaza debacle that they'd arrived with, but maybe some there left a little more depressed about hopes for progress.
Abbas and Netanyahu deserve each other, but Israelis and Palestinians deserve better (some will say that they chose these guys, but dammit I do think I deserved better than Bush-Cheney). Netanyahu feeds red meat to his domestic right flank, and Abbas is no better, now appearing to have decided to move away from accommodation for peace and toward Hamas and confrontation/resistance. They both appear to be taking the cowardly route of shaking their fists at each other and thus bowing to the hatingest haters in their respective bases.
Abbas says to Netanyahu, "I spit on you and your plans!"
Netanyahu's reply, "Ha, I piss on your spit!!"
Abbas: "Oh, yeah?! I shit on your piss!!!"
This is where you look to Kurt Vonnegut for the concluding commentary, "And so it goes."
Nurturing a greater constituency for peace among the two populations looks like an impossibly daunting prospect. The Boteach article on Abbas's earlier speech at Cooper Union campus in New York doesn't touch at any point on finding common ground. Au contraire, it's about Jewish kids standing up to on-campus anatagonism toward Israel. Which is something I strongly support, but at the same time it's not altogether clear to me why so many New York college-age kids showed up to hear from Abbas. Boteach assumes that they are anti-Zionist, but he presents no evidence of that. The encounters he describes between his son and pro-Palestinians there sound like civil exchanges rather than hissing and spitting matches with BDS bullies. Absent evidence of an audience hostile to Israel, I would ask, how many in that audience were in fact pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli -- i.e., pro-peace? I don't know.
My grandfather Harry Yellin A''H, after whom I'm named, attended Cooper Union, where Abbas spoke. I'd love to know what in the world all this looks like from his vantage point. If he is truly resting in peace, you'd have to think that this world is far from his mind, but what do we know?
U.S. criticizes Israel’s new housing project
The rebuke came hours after Obama
and Netanyahu met.
By Julie Pace ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — In a striking public rebuke, the Obama administration warned Israel on Wednesday that plans for a controversial new housing project in East Jerusalem would distance Israel from “even its closest allies” and raise questions about its commitment to seeking peace with Palestinians.
From: This World: The Values Network info@thisworld.us
Subject: No holds barred: Abbas the moderate
|
No comments:
Post a Comment