With an article titled Some question insistence on Israel as Jewish State, the New York Times officially joins the anti-Israel crowd.
No doubt there are those who disagree with Netanyahu as to whether Israel should be called a Jewish state. However, since one of the premises of Palestinian nationalism is the denial of the historical connection between Israel and the Jews, the demand is of utmost importance. If the Palestinians cannot accept Israel as a Jewish state, they are not serious about peace.
It’s ironic. During Netanyahu’s first term in office he withdrew Israel from most of Chevron. He took a concrete step for peace. But even the most basic steps of showing acceptance of Israel are too much to ask of the Palestinians. As long as the Palestinians don’t repudiate their denial of Jewish history, their commitment to peace is nonexistent. It makes their various “special sessions” moot.
As Jeff Jacoby recently wrote:
And yet to Israel’s enemies, Jewish sovereignty is as intolerable today as it was in 1948, when five Arab armies invaded the newborn Jewish state, vowing “a war of extermination and a momentous massacre.” Endless rounds of talks and countless invocations of the “peace process” have not changed the underlying reality of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is not about settlements or borders or Jerusalem or the rights of Palestinians. The root of the hostility is the refusal to recognize the immutable right of the Jewish people to a sovereign state in its historic homeland. Until that changes, no lasting peace is possible.
But instead of questioning the Palestinian commitment to peace the New York Times does what’s comfortable: pretends that Israel is being unreasonable.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
It is no wonder Israel is not looked upon as ‘the’ Jewish state because not one world leader (including one past president who claimed ‘close friendship’)had not even a modicum of integrity or base of honor to call Jerusalem the undivided capital of Israel!! For that much of his base and upper echelon of the Republican party(including many Republican Jews) didn’t care enough either. The litmus test of true friendship would have been a firestorm straight to the oval office.
If I can not let the NYTIMES who obviously has never been a friend of Israel off the hook how is it possible a U.S president who claimed close friendship has never taken the rap for promising to sign the embassy act but never did?
I understand that “Chevron” is a possible transliteration of the Hebrew pronunciation of “Hebron”, but I can’t be the only one who saw “withdrew Israel from most of Chevron” and started wondering what Israel had to do with the Chevron oil company.