Martin Baron's "blood-soaked regime"

So, Marty, the editorial page under your control has repeatedly described the Syrian regime as "blood-soaked".
The latest example of such a description on the ed page:
Trump shouldn’t repeat Obama’s mistake in Iraq and Syria
2017-10-22:

On Syria, Washington appears content to step aside
as Russia and Iran work to restore the authority of
the blood-soaked regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Just what is your complaint against the regime of Bashar al-Assad?
I have no reason to doubt the reports that it has used brutal methods to suppress opposition.
So has Israel.
So have many other regimes.
Just why, Marty, must Syria be singled out from all the states in the world that have used brutal methods,
which could no doubt be described as "blood-soaked",
for opposition by the U.S.?

Oh, wait, if we read a little further in the editorial we discover something special about Syria.
The editorial ends with

A failure by the United States to defend its allies or promote new political arrangements for the two Arab states will lead only to more war, the rise of new terrorist threats and, ultimately, the necessity of more U.S. intervention.

There you have it. It's all about Israel. Why else did the Post exaggerate the supposed threat from Iraq back in 2003 to incite the disastrous deposing of the, again, "blood-soaked" regime of Saddam Hussein?
With results that the Post now decries, namely, the not very surprising ties between Iraq's Shiites and those of Iran.

We know, Marty, what your game and goal is:
To make the U.S. Israel's patsy.
Pure and simple.

Now, Marty, some questions for you:
Which of the Post's editors, opinion columnists, reporters, and managers are Jewish?
What could be more relevant to discerning the possibility of loyalty to a foreign power?
You know, "the Jewish nation". (A term not of my invention, but one used by Jews themselves).
How about bringing some light to that situation?
After all, you know, "Democracy dies in darkness".

(For a powerful rebuttal to the Post's position, see:
Are Our Mideast Wars Forever?
by Patrick J. Buchanan, 2017-10-24,
by a man who seems to be personna non grata to the Post's editorial page.)

What the Washington Post hath wrought

2014-07-25-NYT-in-west-bank-hamas-hailed

In West Bank, Hamas Is Hailed for Its Fight Against Israel
By ISABEL KERSHNER
New York Times, 2014-07-25

...

Just three months ago,
Hamas, financially strapped and diplomatically isolated,
agreed to a reconciliation deal
with President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority
and his secularist Fatah faction
after a bitter, seven-year division,
on minimal terms that analysts said reflected the Islamic group’s weakness.

Now Hamas — which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist
and is considered a terrorist organization by much of the West —
is being hailed in the West Bank as the champion of armed resistance,
while Mr. Abbas, who leads the alternative camp
advocating a negotiated peace deal with Israel,
is being excoriated for having failed to achieve a Palestinian state
after 20 years of intermittent and fruitless Israeli-Palestinian talks.

...

[And just why did Mr. Abbas fail to achieve a Palestinian state?
Was the demand of the Palestinian Authority
that the 1967 boundary be the baseline for negotiations so unreasonable?
I don't think so.
But without American pressure on Israel to let that be the baseline,
the Israeli government rejected that demand.
And why did the American government not put pressure on Israel?
Of course, because putting pressure on Israel
seems to be a policy supported by few in America.
While responsibility for that is widely spread,
surely the Washington Post editorial page
has written editorial after editorial arguing against pressuring Israel,
arguing explicitly that negotiations can only succeed
when each party desires that they succeed.
On the other hand, that same page is more than eager to argue for sanctions
against Iran, Russia, and a host of other parties they consider malefactors.
Well, Israel can show an iron fist as much as they want to the Palestinians,
but I think America needs to take some responsibility
for not encouraging, and as necessary pressuring, Israel
to offer an olive branch instead.
Specifically, agreeing that the 1967 boundary should be the negotiation baseline.]

WaPo, Israel, Russia and sanctions

Here are two Washington Post editorials giving their views on sanctions.
In the case of Israel and its policies in the West Bank, they're against them.
In the case of Russia and its involvement in the Ukraine, they're for them.
It is useful to note how the Post fails to see
that its argument for sanctioning Russia,
namely that only sanctions will force Russia to make meaningful concessions,
also apply to Israel.

2013-12-22-WP-editorial-us-scholars-are-misguided-in-boycotting-israel

U.S. scholars are misguided in boycotting Israel
By Editorial Board
Washington Post, 2013-12-22

[There are at least two tactics Israel’s defenders use to dismiss criticism:
First, they ask
“Why are you picking on Israel,
when there is so much else evil in the world?”
Second, they deny that Israel has achieved its territorial aims by force,
while they claim that others are trying to use force,
military, political, or economic, against Israel.
This editorial demonstrates both tactics.]

[1]
THE AMERICAN STUDIES Association,
a group of about 5,000 scholars devoted to
the interdisciplinary study of U.S. culture and history,
has called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
The association held a vote on a resolution
seeking the boycott as a way to protest
Israeli “state policies that violate human rights” of Palestinians,
including academic freedom for scholars and students.
The resolution drew support of
two-thirds of the 1,252 association members who voted.
The boycott is largely symbolic; it’s also terribly misguided.

[2]
The most difficult thing to swallow about the resolution
is how utterly narrow-minded it seems.
Was the resolution written on a computer manufactured in China,
one of the most repressive regimes on the planet?
[Is the Washington Post dependent on Jewish money for its financial success?]
Did its authors pause to consider China’s incarceration of writers and scholars
who dare to think and speak out for freedom,
or the ethnic groups in China persecuted for refusing to heel to the Beijing masters?
[Does the United States support China economically,
by giving them three billion dollars a year in foreign aid?]
Did they give any thought to what’s happened lately to freedom in Russia,
won at enormous cost in a Cold War that lasted more than four decades?
[Does the United States support Russia diplomatically,
by vetoing in the Security Council resolutions which Russia opposes?]
Does it disturb the scholars that in today’s Russia,
members of a girl band performing a protest against the Kremlin
could be thrown into a cold and miserable prison for two years,
or that civil society organizations are being systematically shuttered?
[Well, perhaps so.
But the fundamental and essential difference is that
without the support of the United States
Israel would not have been able to capture the West Bank in the first place,
and would not be able to continue to hold onto it, 46 years after the 1967 war.]

[3]
Have the scholars overlooked the cries for help
from Cuban dissidents bravely standing up to the Castro brothers,
demanding freedoms —
and suffering beatings and arrest almost every week?
Do they condone the decision of a judge in Saudi Arabia
who has just sentenced a political activist to 300 lashes and four years in prison
for calling for a constitutional monarchy?

[Again,
the United States bears far more responsibility for the misdeeds of Israel,
such as they are,
than it does for the misdeeds of other nations,
which have not received nearly the support from the U.S. that Israel has.]

[4]
To focus a resolution on Israel and ignore these injustices is puzzling at best.
[No.
It just means that the U.S. clearly is far more culpable for the misdeeds of Israel
than it is for those of those other nations.]
It is also fundamentally wrong.
For all of its difficulties, including the wrenching, long conflict with the Palestinians,
Israel has become a lively and durable democracy.
There is more freedom to speak one’s mind and criticize the government
in front of the Knesset
than will be found in either Tiananmen Square or Red Square today —
and far more in Israeli universities than in academia elsewhere in the Middle East.

[Few will deny that Israel has many attractive features.
But this argument misses the point,
that the proposed sanctions can be averted
if Israel would take constructive steps to reach a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians.
If Israel did so,
would that action harm the attractive features of Israel listed by the Post?
If Israel, say, made the 1967 boundary the basis for negotiations on borders,
would that harm Israel's "lively and durable democracy"?
I don't see how it would.]

[5]
This is not to ignore the plight of the Palestinians.
They suffer indignity and human rights violations
for which Israel cannot escape responsibility.
[And the United States too,
for its unstinting support for Israel even under those circumstances.]
But a boycott is not the answer.
Progress toward a resolution of the conflict can be made
if leaders on both sides find the willpower to negotiate with each other
and accept that forceful methods — terrorism, violence and coercion —
lead only to more misery.
The American Studies Association would have more impact
by finding a way to engage deeply with Israelis and Palestinians,
perhaps with scholarly conferences and exchanges,
rather than by punishing Israel with a boycott.

[Israel has demonstrated conclusively, I believe,
by its post-1967 behavior,
that nothing will stop its settlement of the West Bank with Jewish settlers
as long as the United States supports it.]

2014-04-17-WP-editorial-us-sanctions-on-russia-over-ukraine-would-buy-negotiating-power

U.S. sanctions on Russia over Ukraine would buy negotiating power
By Editorial Board
Washington Post, 2014-04-17

[1]
RUSSIA AND the United States
have pursued dramatically different strategies on Ukraine
in the 10 days preceding a diplomatic meeting Thursday in Geneva.
While loudly denouncing
what it has described as direct Russian intervention in eastern Ukraine
and threatening tough sanctions,
the Obama administration elected not to take any concrete action
in the hope that the meeting,
which also includes the foreign ministers of Ukraine and the European Union,
will produce positive results.
The administration also has refused
Ukraine’s desperate requests for non-lethal aid for its military
as it attempts to turn back the quasi-covert offensive.

[2]
Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, in contrast,
clearly is unconcerned about provoking the other side.
Russian operatives, who apparently have infiltrated military forces,
have been steadily stepping up their attacks
on Ukrainian government installations in a dozen or more cities and towns.
On Wednesday these forces and their Ukrainian followers
managed to turn back a weak effort by the Ukrainian government
to retake some of the installations,
in one case disarming a column of government soldiers
and confiscating their armored personnel carriers.

[3]
Consequently, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov
will arrive in Geneva with considerable leverage.
With eastern Ukraine in Russian-induced chaos,
Moscow is ready not to negotiate but to dictate terms.
“Ukraine,” said Mr. Lavrov on Wednesday,
“must be forced to start genuine rather than cosmetic constitutional reform.”
By that he means Ukraine should be forced to dismember itself
into autonomous regions that the Kremlin could manipulate and ultimately control.

[4]
What chips do the United States and European Union have
to counter Moscow’s bald aggression?
Little more than vague threats.
“We are actively looking at our options,”
said White House spokesman Jay Carney on Tuesday.
Officials privately say they are working with the Europeans
on a modest expansion of last month’s sanctions against Mr. Putin’s inner circle —
while holding off on the far-more-potent “sectoral sanctions”
that Mr. Kerry said were “on the table” last week.

[5]
The Obama administration is not wrong
to pursue a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis.

But diplomacy can’t succeed
when the underlying balance of forces
is lopsidedly in favor of a U.S. adversary —
and the administration declines to take actions
that might create incentives for compromise.

That’s as true of Mr. Putin’s Russia as it is of Bashar al-Assad’s Syria,
which dismissed the last U.S. effort to broker an accord in Geneva
after Mr. Obama elected not to provide significant support for Syrian rebels.

[6]
Administration advocates of inaction argue that
Washington should move only in concert with European governments,
which have much larger economic interests in Russia
and consequently are more reluctant.
But as it demonstrated with Iran,
the United States has the power to take potent action on its own,
especially in the financial sector —
and such steps can induce other countries to join in.
By waiting for Europe,
the Obama administration essentially hands a veto over its response
to what it describes as unacceptable transgressions to states such as Cyprus and Malta.

[7]
The Obama administration’s attempt to smooth the way for a diplomatic solution
has virtually ensured that the Geneva meeting will fail.
Once it does, the president should take action
that will give Mr. Putin tangible cause to pull back.

Israel's flacks in Washington

2013-12-22-WP-editorial-us-scholars-are-misguided-in-boycotting-israel

U.S. scholars are misguided in boycotting Israel
By Editorial Board
Washington Post, 2013-12-22

[There are at least two tactics Israel’s defenders use to dismiss criticism:
First, they ask
“Why are you picking on Israel,
when there is so much else evil in the world?”
Second, they deny that Israel has achieved its territorial aims by force,
while they claim that others are trying to use force,
military, political, or economic, against Israel.
This editorial demonstrates both tactics.]

[1]
THE AMERICAN STUDIES Association,
a group of about 5,000 scholars devoted to
the interdisciplinary study of U.S. culture and history,
has called for a boycott of Israeli academic institutions.
The association held a vote on a resolution
seeking the boycott as a way to protest
Israeli “state policies that violate human rights” of Palestinians,
including academic freedom for scholars and students.
The resolution drew support of
two-thirds of the 1,252 association members who voted.
The boycott is largely symbolic; it’s also terribly misguided.

[2]
The most difficult thing to swallow about the resolution
is how utterly narrow-minded it seems.
Was the resolution written on a computer manufactured in China,
one of the most repressive regimes on the planet?
[Is the Washington Post dependent on Jewish money for its financial success?]
Did its authors pause to consider China’s incarceration of writers and scholars
who dare to think and speak out for freedom,
or the ethnic groups in China persecuted for refusing to heel to the Beijing masters?
[Does the United States support China economically,
by giving them three billion dollars a year in foreign aid?]
Did they give any thought to what’s happened lately to freedom in Russia,
won at enormous cost in a Cold War that lasted more than four decades?
[Does the United States support Russia diplomatically,
by vetoing in the Security Council resolutions which Russia opposes?]
Does it disturb the scholars that in today’s Russia,
members of a girl band performing a protest against the Kremlin
could be thrown into a cold and miserable prison for two years,
or that civil society organizations are being systematically shuttered?
[Well, perhaps so.
But the fundamental and essential difference is that
without the support of the United States
Israel would not have been able to capture the West Bank in the first place,
and would not be able to continue to hold onto it, 46 years after the 1967 war.]

[3]
Have the scholars overlooked the cries for help
from Cuban dissidents bravely standing up to the Castro brothers,
demanding freedoms —
and suffering beatings and arrest almost every week?
Do they condone the decision of a judge in Saudi Arabia
who has just sentenced a political activist to 300 lashes and four years in prison
for calling for a constitutional monarchy?

[Again,
the United States bears far more responsibility for the misdeeds of Israel,
such as they are,
than it does for the misdeeds of other nations,
which have not received nearly the support from the U.S. that Israel has.
For some data in support of that fact,
see this May 2014 remark by U.S. SecDef Chuck Hagel.]

[4]
To focus a resolution on Israel and ignore these injustices is puzzling at best.
[No.
It just means that the U.S. clearly is far more culpable for the misdeeds of Israel
than it is for those of those other nations.]
It is also fundamentally wrong.
For all of its difficulties, including the wrenching, long conflict with the Palestinians,
Israel has become a lively and durable democracy.
There is more freedom to speak one’s mind and criticize the government
in front of the Knesset
than will be found in either Tiananmen Square or Red Square today —
and far more in Israeli universities than in academia elsewhere in the Middle East.

[Few will deny that Israel has many attractive features.
But this argument misses the point,
that the proposed sanctions can be averted
if Israel would take constructive steps to reach a reasonable compromise with the Palestinians.
If Israel did so,
would that action harm the attractive features of Israel listed by the Post?
If Israel, say, made the 1967 boundary the basis for negotiations on borders,
would that harm Israel's "lively and durable democracy"?
I don't see how it would.]

[5]
This is not to ignore the plight of the Palestinians.
They suffer indignity and human rights violations
for which Israel cannot escape responsibility.
[And the United States too,
for its unstinting support for Israel even under those circumstances.]
But a boycott is not the answer.
Progress toward a resolution of the conflict can be made
if leaders on both sides find the willpower to negotiate with each other
and accept that forceful methods — terrorism, violence and coercion —
lead only to more misery.
The American Studies Association would have more impact
by finding a way to engage deeply with Israelis and Palestinians,
perhaps with scholarly conferences and exchanges,
rather than by punishing Israel with a boycott.

[Israel has demonstrated conclusively, I believe,
by its post-1967 behavior,
that nothing will stop its settlement of the West Bank with Jewish settlers
as long as the United States supports it.]

Pro-Israel, anti-Muslim media

Is American media pro-Israel and anti-Muslim?
CAMERA and FLAME, among others, say no.
Others, such as Kathleen Christison, say yes.
Surely the answer to this question lies in the eye of the beholder.

Nonetheless, this document will argue in the affirmative.

2006: Pope Benedict and the Settlements

In September 2006 an enourmous media brouhaha broke out over
the reactions of some Muslims to some remarks by Pope Benedict.
The main point of most of the media coverage seemed to be
to show how violent the Muslim world was.

At the same time, another Mideast story was all but ignored by the media.
This was the decision of the Israeli government
to build new houses in one of the West Bank settlements.

Why was the story that put Muslims in a bad light
beaten to death by the media,
while the story that showed how
Israel is yet further continuing its aggression against the Palestinians
is ignored?

I think the answer is clear:
In July and August of 2006, the media was full of news about
Israel’s conflict with Hezbollah and Lebanon,
which was so one-sided and punitive that it provoked charges of war crimes
from both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
One thing that Jews, masters of manipulation that they are,
do not want to leave on the public mind
is anything which would put Israel in a bad light,
especially as compared to the Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims.
How better to push out of the public mind
the views of carnage and destruction in Lebanon
than by endless claims of how either
Islam is a religion of violence or that Muslims are inherently violent
by endlessly high-lighting the angry reactions of some Muslims
to Pope Benedict’s address?
(By the way, I think it is really shameful that
Jews spend so much time criticizing Muslims,
but so little time reflecting on the damage that they have done to Muslims.
How would Jews react if Muslims did to them what they do to Muslims?
And to say that Israel is always the victim, never the aggressor,
is to tell a lie.)
So in September of 2006 we got
all those stories about Muslim anger and violence.
(Again by the way,
note how Jews howl when negative news about Israel is presented
without “context” which would show what provoked Israel’s negative actions,
while when negative news about Muslims is presented,
any context of what provoked those negative actions is typically omitted.)

Michael Scheuer has, fortunately, provided a useful picture of the situation.

---

Miscellaneous Articles

2002

2002-04-02-Alterman

Intractable Foes, Warring Narratives
By Eric Alterman
MSNBC.com, 2002-04-02

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

A Tale Of Two Stories

In most of the world,
it is the Palestinian narrative of a dispossessed people that dominates.
In the United States, however,
the narrative that dominates is Israel’s:
a democracy under constant siege.
Europeans and other Palestinian partisans point to the fact that
the Israel lobby in America is one of the strongest anywhere, and
Jewish individuals and organizations
give millions of dollars to political candidates
in order to reward pro-Israel policies
and punish those who support the Palestinians.
Another reason, however, is
the near-complete domination by pro-Israel partisans
of the punditocracy discourse.
Some Jewish groups in America like to harass
news organizations like The Washington Post or National Public Radio
for what they believe to be coverage insufficiently sympathetic to Israel’s plight.
But
even Ariel Sharon and Benjamin Netanyahu
would not be able to complain about
the level of support their actions typically receive
from the members of the punditocracy.

[Note that, as Philip Weiss likes to observe, that
hard-right Israeli leaders
enjoy near universal support from the American Jewish community.]

For reasons of religion, politics, history and genuine conviction
the punditocracy debate of the Middle East in America
is dominated by
people who cannot imagine criticizing Israel.
The value of this legion to the Jewish state is, for better or worse,
literally incalculable,
particularly when push—as it inevitably does in the Middle East—comes to shove.

2007

2007-01-30-WP-Kessler

Israel May Have Misused Cluster Bombs, U.S. Says
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post, 2007-01-30

[Note the absence of Muslim views.]

2007-03-27-WP-Farhi

In the Mideast War of Ideas, The View From The Arab Side
By Paul Farhi
Washington Post, 2007-03-27

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

PBS’s excellent and comprehensive “News War” series wraps up tonight
with a report on the rise of pan-Arabic television
[“War of Ideas”].

...

“Because Arabs are upset about the presence of foreign forces in an Arab country,
there are no good images of an American soldier,”
Duncan MacInnis,
a member of the State Department’s “Rapid Response” information team,
tells [Reporter-narrator Greg Barker].
“An American soldier building a hospital in Iraq
is still an American soldier in Iraq.”

Barker also chats up al-Jazeera’s director-general
and scores an interview with a journalist at al-Manar.
Everyone seems perfectly reasonable, mainly because
“Frontline” shies away from
showing some of the uglier things
that pass for “news” in the Arab media....

[There are several problems indicated by this passage.

1. Wny would Frontline shy away from showing these “things”?


2. Why does Farhi think it acceptable, let alone laudable,
   that Frontline did omit showing these things?

The underlying issue is this:
How are we supposed to know “why they hate us”
if we are kept from knowing what they consider news?

What is incredibly harming American is that
its ADL/AIPAC-controlled media is performing this censoring function,
keeping us from understanding (which does not connote “agreeing with”)
their point of view.

The Frontline program itself contains much of the usual Zionist propaganda line,
for example,
“Hezbollah [is] one of America’s sworn enemies” (compare),
and describing organizations which resist Zionist aggression as “extremist.”
Perhaps the ethnic background (could it be Jewish?) of many of the patrons and sponsors of PBS and Frontline has something to do with this.]

2007-08-17-NYT-Erlanger

Events Prod U.S. to Make New Push for Mideast Deal
By STEVEN ERLANGER
New York Times, 2007-08-17

This “News Analysis” is a case study
in how the media is biased towards Israel.
The “Analysis” consists of a brief description of the situation
together with extensive commentary and analysis from one Martin S. Indyk.
But who is Martin S. Indyk?
The article describes him as
“a Clinton administration official and ambassador to Israel.”
No pro-Israel bias evident there.
But look at what was left out:
Indyk has been research director of AIPAC,
and spent eight years at WINEP,
the Washington Institute for Near East Policy,
described here, here, and here
as “a wing of AIPAC” that
“has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions.”
Beinin’s report also points out how WINEP under Indyk issued reports which
“urged the incoming administration to
‘resist pressures for a procedural breakthrough
[on Palestinian-Israeli peace issues]
until conditions have ripened’. ”

The NYT article states

But to do what, exactly?
Mr. Indyk, at the Brookings Institution
and thinking about the lessons of Camp David,
warns against hubris.
“If Rice goes for final status she’ll drive it into the ground,”
he said.
Israel does not have enough confidence in Mr. Abbas
or a divided Palestinian polity
to pull out of large sections of the West Bank,
fearing Gaza-like chaos that could rain rockets on Ben Gurion airport.

So here we have both Indyk and the NYT
stating the Israeli position as if it is the only reasonable one.
But there are some problems with that.

Firstly,
why would “going for final status” be hubris?
Why wouldn’t it just be doing the right thing?
(It’s really hilarious how Jews accuse everyone who disagrees with them
as being ruled by base motives, such as hubris and hatred,
while they claim that they represent
a “higher morality” and are “the chosen people.”
Just who is possessed by hubris?)

Secondly,
Israel has spent forty years putting off talks on final status.
Indyk is merely echoing this long-standing Israeli position.
He is nothing more than a flack for Israel.

Thirdly, why would
“pull[ing] out of large sections of the West Bank [lead to a]
rain [of] rockets on Ben Gurion”?
It depends on what parts of the West Bank were withdrawn from.
Further, before Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967,
was there Gaza-like chaos with rockets raining down on Israel?
Certainly not.
So if that is the expected situation now,
after forty years of apartheid-like rule by the Israelis over the Palestinians,
then
the Israelis have no one to blame for this situation but themselves.
But when did you ever hear an Israeli, or a Jew,
accept blame for disastrous situation in Israel/Palestine?

2007-08-19-Friedman

Seeing Is Believing
by Thomas L. Friedman
New York Times Op-Ed, 2007-08-19

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

I [Thomas L. Friedman] have a simple view about both
Arab-Israeli peace-making and Iraqi surge-making,
and it goes like this:
Any Arab-Israeli peace overture
that requires a Middle East expert to explain to you
is not worth considering.
It’s going nowhere.

Either a peace overture is so obvious and grabs you in the gut --
Anwar Sadat’s trip to Israel --
or it’s going nowhere.
That is why the Saudi-Arab League peace overture is going nowhere.
[For the text of the original initiative, scroll to the bottom here.]
No emotional content.
It was basically faxed to the Israeli people,
and people don’t give up land for peace
in a deal that comes over the fax.

[This is terribly, terribly wrong.
Let’s take the simple, linguistic, thing first.
Note how he asserts Israel is being asked to “give up” land.
One “gives up” things that it rightfully possesses.
One “returns” things that it took, or received, from others.
Israel seized, conquered, that land in 1967.
What it is being asked to do is to return or “give back”
the land to its rightful owners.

But now on to the significant problems with Friedman’s views.
He seems to have three problems with the Saudi-Arab League peace overture.
Here they are (in italics) with my retorts:

1. It is not “obvious” and, perhaps,
   “requires a Middle East expert to explain [it] to you”.
   
   The text of the proposal as given here (scroll to the bottom)
   seems quite simple, obvious, direct, and uncomplicated.
   The key point of the text is that it addresses the key issues of the conflict.
   The text, by the way, is only 516 words long.
   It may not be what Friedman,
   and the Israelis he undoubtedly is carrying water for, wants,
   but it certainly seems obvious and straight-forward enough.
   His gripe seems to be totally without merit.



2. In Friedman’s view it
   fails to “grab you in the gut” and lacks “emotional content.”
   
   I don’t see any relevance whatsoever
   of the criteria Friedman mentions here
   to the requirements for a valid peace proposal.
   This seems like a total red herring.
   Further, does it really lack “emotional content”
   that the Arab world is willing to offer peace with Israel
   in return for Israel returning to its 1967 boundary?
   If Israel were more interested in peace than in conquered territory,
   then this offer would have plenty of emotional content.
   See, for example, 2002-03-04-Avnery.



3. In Friedman’s view it
   “was basically faxed to the Israeli people” and
   “people don’t give up land for peace
   in a deal that comes over the fax.”
   
   It’s a beginning.
   That the initial initiative was sent through intermediaries
   is no reason to not pursue the openings that it offers,
   which could expand into much more than
   just communications through intermediaries.

The Arab peace initiative is obviously trying to break the ice,
to start Israel on a path to making peace
both with the Palestinians and with the larger Arab world.
It gives Israel something that it claims to want,
a status of peace with the Arab world.

The problem for the Jews, almost surely,
is one that they don’t want to talk about.
Israeli leaders, and evidently the majority of the Israeli people,
have decided that they are unwilling to give up significant chunks of the territory that they conquered in 1967,
even if they are being offered peace in return.
But rather than just coming out and admitting that,
they offer endless excuses a la Friedman,
or complain that “the situation isn’t ripe yet.”

Finally, note how Friedman’s excuses provide an updating to 2007
of “How to Torpedo the Saudis” by Uri Avnery.]

2007-Fall-Slater-Muting-the-Alarm

Muting the Alarm over the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
The New York Times versus Haaretz, 2000-06
PDF
PDFPlus
by Jerome Slater
International Security, 2007-Fall

[This is a really excellent 37 page academic paper.
Here is its abstract:]

The prospects for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
remain poor, largely because of
Israeli rigidity as well as Palestinian policies and internal conflicts.
The United States has failed to use its considerable influence with Israel
to seek the necessary changes in Israeli policies,
instead providing the country with almost unconditional support.
The consequences have been disastrous
for the Palestinians,
for Israeli security and society, and
for critical U.S. national interests in the Middle East.
A major explanation for the failure of U.S. policies is
the largely uninformed and uncritical mainstream and even elite media coverage
of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the United States.
In contrast,
the debate in Israel is more self-critical, vigorous, and far-ranging,
creating at least the possibility of change,
even as U.S. policy stagnates.
A comparison of the coverage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict
by the two most prestigious daily newspapers in the United States and Israel—
in particular, over
the breakdown of the peace process in 2000 and the ensuing Palestinian intifada,
the nature of the Israeli occupation,
the problem of violence and terrorism, and
the prospects for peace today—
underscores these differences.
While the New York Times has muted the alarm over
the dangers of the United States' near-unconditional support
for Israeli policies toward the Palestinians,
Haaretz has sought to sound the alarm.

2008

2008-12-28-Greenwald-Peretz

Marty Peretz and the American political consensus on Israel
by Glenn Greenwald
Salon.com, 2008-12-28

This is posted in
Pro-Israel, anti-Muslim media (at kwhmediawatch.blogspot.com)
Jews and the media
America, American Jews, and Israel

2009

2009-01-13-Giraldi

Pure Propaganda From the Papers of Record
by Philip Giraldi
Antiwar.com, 2009-01-13

The Israeli propaganda machine
has called up its allies in the media and Congress
to make sure that no one will condemn the invasion of Gaza...

2009-02-01-WP-Hoagland

Good Words for a War That Goes On
By Jim Hoagland
(Hoagland is one of the Post’s regular op-ed columnists,
specializing in foreign affairs.)
Washington Post Op-Ed, 2009-02-01

[An excerpt; emphasis is added.]

Let’s be clear:
Americans did not initiate
the conflict with al-Qaeda and other Muslim extremists,
and Americans will not be the ones to declare an end to
the struggle against violent extremism practiced in the name of jihad.

That is a task that falls to Muslims themselves.
At its core,
this struggle is over the future of Islam.

[

1. This view, that the U.S./Muslim conflict is entirely the fault of some in the Muslim world, is both bigoted and wrong.
   Michael Scheuer, for one, has extensively documented in both Imperial Hubris and Marching toward Hell the actions and policies of the U.S. and Israel that have contributed towards, and in fact initiated, the conflict.
   Muslims did not attack the U.S. before Israel, by force of arms, conquered Palestine.


2. The Post is certain entitled to have one or more columnists as bigoted and/or ignorant as Hoagland presenting the Zionist point of view.
   But where is the regular columnist who will provide balance?

]

New York Times and Israel

2014-04-15-NYT-editorial-in-the-middle-east-time-to-move-on

In the Middle East, Time to Move On
By THE EDITORIAL BOARD
New York Times editorial, 2014-04-15

[1]
The pointless arguing over
who brought Israeli-Palestinian peace talks to the brink of collapse
is in full swing.
The United States is still working to salvage the negotiations,
but there is scant sign of serious purpose.
It is time for the administration to lay down
the principles it believes must undergird a two-state solution,
should Israelis and Palestinians ever decide to make peace.
Then President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry should move on
and devote their attention to other major international challenges like Ukraine.

[2]
Among those principles should be:
a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with borders based on the 1967 lines;
mutually agreed upon land swaps that allow Israel to retain some settlements
while compensating the Palestinians with land that is comparable in quantity and quality;
and agreement that Jerusalem will be the capital of the two states.

[I agree entirely with those principles as a baseline for negotiations.
I am glad that the New York Times also supports those.
But the practical, operational question is:
What can the United States do to get Israel to accept that those principles
should form the basis of a settlement?
The lessons of the post-1967 period show, I believe,
that without (gasp) outside pressure on Israel,
Israel is quite content with the status quo of
ever-expanding encroachment on Palestinian-occupied lands.
If the U.S. continues to extend to Israel
a blank check in support of its current policies,
Israel will not accept those principles.]

...

Washington Post and Israel

2011

2011-03-28-Weiss-WP-Diehl-headlines

Washington Post headlines are reminiscent of
Southern politicians holding the line against civil rights
by Philip Weiss
Mondoweiss.net, 2011-03-28

From a Jackson Diehl piece:

The hard part will be managing Barack Obama.
...
Netanyahu knows how to deal with the Palestinians.
Managing Obama is the harder task.