Let’s compare and contrast. First, the new offer from Israel, which will actually included the words “1967 lines,” as the Palestinians and Obama administration have been demanding, according to the Jerusalem Post. Note that even though this is the Israeli press, it’s a pretty balanced view of the negotiations. You really can’t say these four paragraphs favor one or the other side.
With the Palestinians set to seek recognition of statehood at the UN in just a number of weeks, Israel said Tuesday it would be willing to accept the 1967 lines as a framework for talks as part of a package in which the Palestinians would recognize Jewish state.
Israeli officials said this framework would be a package deal whereby Israel would agree to entering negotiations using the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed upon swaps, as the baseline of talks; and the Palestinians would agree that the final goal of negotiations would be two states, a Palestinian one and Jewish one.
Israel raised the formula as officials from both parties, the US, EU and Russia are continuing to work on a document to provide a framework for a return to negotiations that could make a Palestinian bid at the UN superfluous.
According to this formulation, one official explained, each side would get something: The Palestinians would get the 1967 lines as the baseline, something they have long sought; and Israel would get Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
Now let’s look at the AP version. First, the headline:
Israel, US race to avert Palestinian UN bid
Compare that to the JPost headline:
PM would accept pre-’67 lines as baseline for talks
Quite a difference. Now the AP explanation:
Israel is working with the United States to find a way to revive peace negotiations with the Palestinians in a desperate attempt to avert a diplomatic showdown at the U.N. next month, an Israeli official confirmed Tuesday.
The talks, meant to provide a framework for negotiations, are focusing on two of the most sensitive issues in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: the borders between Israel and a future Palestine, and Israel’s demand that the Palestinians recognize the country as the Jewish homeland.
Note the difference. Israel’s “demand” for recognition as the national homeland of the Jewish people is a “desperate attempt” to prevent the UN from recognizing the Palestinian state, but the border issue, which is absolutely critical to peace between the twon nations, is just plain “borders.” And now watch them put down the effort that Netanyahu is making to comply with the U.S. demands (and they are demands, not recommendations), and utterly ignore the complete rejection of Obama’s demands by the Palestinians. Notice that recognition of the Jewish state is a “demand,” but flooding Israeli with Palestinian refugees is a “right.” See the juxtaposition of the text in bold. That was done deliberately. The “right of return” has been said so many times that the AP now takes it as fact, which it is not. Also note that even though Netanyahu is now saying that he’s willing to use the language that Obama wants—the 1967 lines as a basis—the AP article still puts down Netanyahu as being demanding.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly said he will not return to the 1967 lines, and that he wants to retain chunks of the West Bank. But the official said Israel is “willing to show some flexibility” on the matter, if the Palestinians show flexibility with Israeli concerns.
Netanyahu has demanded the Palestinians recognize Israel as “the Jewish state,” a position endorsed by Obama. The Palestinians reject this demand, saying it would undermine the rights of Israel’s Arab minority as well as those of Palestinian refugees who hope to return to lost properties in Israel.
In the West Bank, senior Palestinian officials said they have heard nothing new from Israel or the United States.
“There is no offer,” said Saeb Erekat, the chief Palestinian negotiator. “We have only heard things in the media. If Netanyahu would like to talk about accepting the 1967 borders, he can just show up and talk. But he is not serious.”
And then, of course, the AP plays up the settlement issue, while, as always, ignoring the fact that Jews lived in eastern Jerusalem until 1948, when Jordan ethnically cleansed the eastern half of the city of all its Jews. Why would the AP mention the fact that the Jewish Quarter is in the eastern half? That would destroy the narrative. And the narrative must be supported overall. Damn objectivity: Full narrative ahead!