Media narrative or floating balloons?

Yesterday the New York Times trumpeted the fact that one of the Obama administration “punishments” for Netanyahu refusing to freeze natural growth of the suburbs of Jerusalem—a.k.a. “settlement growth”—would be a lack of support for Israel in the UN.

Today, the State Department says that’s not gonna happen.

US State Department spokesman Robert Wood said Monday that the US government would continue to ensure that Israel received fair treatment in the United Nations.

“As you know, we’ve long worked to ensure that Israel is treated fairly at the United Nations. That will continue. And as you know, Israel is a close friend and ally. And we remain committed to its security. And as I said, that will continue,” he said.

So here’s my question: Is it wishful thinking on the part of the anti-Israel media, or is it the Obama administration floating trial balloons to see how much pushback they’d receive?

Right now, I’m on the side of wishful thinking on behalf of the media. But all this could change after Obama’s speech on Thursday. However, it’s increasingly obvious that while Obama wants Netanyahu to uphold commitments of previous administrations, he feels no such compunctions himself.

He said Obama’s administration would not focus on agreements made between Israel and the Bush administration. “Both parties have obligations under the Road Map that they need to live up to. And we’re going to do what we can, to help the parties do what they need to do,” he said.

This is what you wrought, 72% of Jewish voters. Don’t blame me. I voted for McCain.

This entry was posted in Israel, Media Bias, The One. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Media narrative or floating balloons?

  1. hs935684 says:

    I suspect that it’s a case of neither wishful thinking on the part of the liberal media, nor State telling the truth. The UN isn’t the important problem. It’s the potential failure (refusal) to provide munitions or spare parts, that has me worried..

    Israel needs to find other sources, or become self-sufficient.

    You’re right about most American Jewish voters, with their heads in the clouds. I have an elderly aunt who still thinks that Hussein can do no wrong. She becomes very upset whenever I tell her what I think of him. As an outsider, her attitude puzzles me. Sadly, the 1930s appear to be repeating themselves.

    Henry Kissinger was right about America – being her enemy can be dangerous, but being her ally can be fatal.

  2. Eric J says:

    If the US really has been working “to ensure that Israel is treated fairly at the United Nations,” based on the results, it may be time to say “Stop Helping!”

  3. Soccerdad says:

    I believe that there’s an element of media inflation. (see my previous post and see Backspin) Helene Cooper is looking for anything to show – and magnify – the deep divisions between the administration and Israel.

    But there’s also something that’s being mis-represented here. The Bush administration adopted a policy, not of an unqualified automatic veto, but of an automatic veto of any resolution that was clearly biased against Israel. Amb. John Danforth articulated the Bush adminstration’s view very well in October 2004.

    But before it was put to a vote, U.S. Ambassador John Danforth took the floor to serve clear notice that Washington considered it lopsided and unbalanced. He charged that the measure would only encourage terrorists by condemning Israel while omitting the other side of the story.
    “It does not mention even one of the 450 Qassam rocket attacks launched against Israel over the past two years,” he said. “It does not mention two hundred rockets launched this year alone. It does not mention the two Israeli children who were outside playing last week when a rocket suddenly crashed into their young bodies.”
    Ambassador Danforth charged that a vote in favor of the proposed resolution would have encouraged terrorists and done nothing to prevent what he called “the predictable Israeli response”
    “When the rest of the world gangs up on Israel with insidious silence about terrorism, it does not advance the cause of peace,” he said. “It encourages both sides to dig in. It makes Israel feel isolated and backed into a corner and it discourages dialogue.”

    Claiming that the United States automatically vetoes any resolution critical of Israel misses this important context. It fails to acknowledge that the reason for the veto is the extremely skewed nature of the resolutions brought to the floor of the UN.

  4. Soccerdad says:

    Here’s a vote for “media narrative,” as co-reported by Helene Cooper:
    Obama Plays Down Split Over Israeli Settlements .

    In other words, “President Obama is trying to put out the fires I keep trying to start.”

  5. cliff was from montreal says:

    “Part of being a good friend is being honest,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with NPR News.
    Works both ways..I hope his huge ego is ready for a slap.

  6. Pamela says:

    Obama’s ego needs a pride cut.

  7. Alex Bensky says:

    So Israel will be punished for failing to go along with an American initiative. Obama wants both sides to work for peace and I’m waiting to see what punishments, or mild criticisms, he will offer of the Palis’ relentless, constant hatefest towards Israel. Will he even mention it? Any bets.

Comments are closed.