The New York Times certainly has a way of creatively interpreting events. On May 28, 2009, the Times reported that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' meeting with President Obama was "more amicable" than Israeli officials' meetings were. I interpret this, in light of President Obama's Cairo speech the next week, to reflect President Obama's clear preference for engaging the Arabs in dialogue, and heavily taking their side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President has essentially frozen Israel out of negotiations, only talking to the Palestinians.
But the Times has a different take. Why were the talks "more amicable" with President Abbas? Because Abbas "does not have the political weight at the moment to push through anything on the Palestinian side." Poor, poor Abbas. All he wants is to forge a peace with Israel, but he lacks the political ability. On what do they base this? Back in April, Abbas made it clear that he would not recognize Israel as the Jewish state (!). The Israelis have had the audacity to make this request of the Palestinians.
Does anyone honestly believe that all that is holding President Abbas back from making peace with Israel is "political weight," as the Times would have it? Or perhaps it is that, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas has no desire to make peace with Israel? For if he would do this, as Arafat himself feared, this would spell the end of his career. President Abbas knows that if he reaches an agreement with Israel, there will be no more excuses. No more blaming Israel for the Palestinians' woes, no more claiming impotence when dealing with terrorism. It will be time to mature as a people, and take responsibility for one's own actions.
Leave it to the New York Times to make excuse after excuse for any perceived victim group. It is never their fault, always external factors'. Mahmoud Abbas categorically rejected the notion of Israel as the Jewish state. And the Times says that American-Palestinian talks were amicable due to President Obama's desire to build up President Abbas' political weight.
Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling.
But the Times has a different take. Why were the talks "more amicable" with President Abbas? Because Abbas "does not have the political weight at the moment to push through anything on the Palestinian side." Poor, poor Abbas. All he wants is to forge a peace with Israel, but he lacks the political ability. On what do they base this? Back in April, Abbas made it clear that he would not recognize Israel as the Jewish state (!). The Israelis have had the audacity to make this request of the Palestinians.
Does anyone honestly believe that all that is holding President Abbas back from making peace with Israel is "political weight," as the Times would have it? Or perhaps it is that, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas has no desire to make peace with Israel? For if he would do this, as Arafat himself feared, this would spell the end of his career. President Abbas knows that if he reaches an agreement with Israel, there will be no more excuses. No more blaming Israel for the Palestinians' woes, no more claiming impotence when dealing with terrorism. It will be time to mature as a people, and take responsibility for one's own actions.
Leave it to the New York Times to make excuse after excuse for any perceived victim group. It is never their fault, always external factors'. Mahmoud Abbas categorically rejected the notion of Israel as the Jewish state. And the Times says that American-Palestinian talks were amicable due to President Obama's desire to build up President Abbas' political weight.
Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling.
No comments:
Post a Comment