Yourish.com

In the Middle East, the New York Times Doesn’t Burden Itself with Proof

In the little town of Candor in the last year of my youth
I learned the final lesson of the levels to the truth – The Mayor of Candor Lied – Harry Chapin

There was a line in a recent New York Times report that made me think about how the New York Times shades the truth. The report was about the increasingly contentious relationship between Egypt’s interim government and the international media.

Officials now charge, without evidence, that many protesters are Syrian or Palestinian.

Apparently that’s the standard of the New York Times. To be true, an assertion must be supported with evidence. Or does it?

In recent weeks we’ve seen a number of articles that demonstrate how the New York Times deals with demanding proof of an assertions validity.

Earlier this month, Israel was about to restart peace talks with the Palestinians, after agreeing to release 104 murderers from jail. The New York Times reported On Eve of Talks, Israel Approves More Housing and Stops a Rocket:

In a new affront to the Palestinians on the eve of resumed peace talks, the Israeli Interior Ministry’s final approval of nearly 900 new apartments in a contested part of Jerusalem has been officially published, Israeli news media reported Tuesday. It was Israel’s second move since Sunday to advance housing construction in areas sought by the Palestinians for a future state.

But as the article later reported, Secretary of State John Kerry said that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had been “completely upfront with me and with President Abbas that he would be announcing some additional building that would take place in places that will not affect the peace map.”

Even after the reporting effectively refuted the idea that the announcement was an affront, the reporter still used the loaded language. (Of course, she also provided outraged quotes from Palestinians. But was she reporting the outrage; or seeking to validate it?) When Palestinians take offense in the New York Times, no qualification is necessary.

In contrast, another article from the same time told of the differing approaches of the two societies to the prisoners who were to be released:

They are widely viewed in Palestinian society as political prisoners, but most Israelis see them as terrorists.

They are terrorists. They are not political prisoners. Palestinian society (and its cheerleaders) is the exception and yet the Times portrays both sides as equally valid. “Most Israelis?” Actually most civilized people consider the murderers of innocents to be terrorists.

Affronts to Israel are qualified.

In another dazzling display of logical acrobatics, the New York Times managed to imply that Israel was guilty of a terrorist bombing in Lebanon.

Last week a powerful car bomb exploded in Beirut killing at least 27 people. There are two true statements about the news of this terrorism.
a) A Sunni group called the Brigades of Aisha took responsibility for the attack.
b) A Lebanese political analyst suggested that Israel may have been responsible.

Guess which true statement made it into the New York Times.

In Deadly Blast Rocks a Hezbollah Stronghold in Lebanon, New York Times reporter Ben Hubbard first wrote that there were “no credible claims of responsibility” but towards the end he quoted the Lebanese analyst:

Talal Atrissi, a Lebanese political analyst, said he did not rule out Israeli involvement. Israel, along with the United States and the European Union, considers Hezbollah a terrorist organization, and it has assassinated many of its leaders. The bombing took place one day before Hezbollah’s annual commemoration of its one-month war with Israel in 2006.

So it’s true that Talal Atrissi suggested that Israel may have been responsible. But it’s also true that Atrissi made his absurd suggestion with no evidence, which had been the standard at the New York Times elsewhere. Worse, the reporter added a sentence to suggest (again with no evidence) that maybe there was something to the suggestion.

More recently the usually execrable Robert Mackey did some fact checking of his own, in Israel Behind Egypt’s Coup, Erdogan Says. After claiming that he had evidence that Israel was behind the ouster of Egypt’s Mohammed Morsi. Well Erdogan had proof.

Mr. Erdogan’s office later confirmed that he was referring to a YouTube video of remarks Mr. Lévy made in 2011 during a discussion of “Israel and the Arab Spring” with the Israeli politician Tzipi Livni at Tel Aviv University.

In the video Tzippi Livni, who was in the Israeli government and the Jewish philosopher, Bernard Henri Levi were discussing a hypothetical Muslim Brotherhood electoral victory. Levi was simply saying that he thought that Islamists were a danger to any society that they ruled. So yes Erdogan had evidence, it just wasn’t evidence of the conspiracy theory he was peddling. Mackey’s aware of this and then writes:

It remains unclear why Mr. Erdogan interpreted comments from a French philosopher who holds no official position in his home country or in Israel as “evidence” of Israeli responsibility for the coup in Egypt. As my colleague Jodi Rudoren reported this week, Israeli officials have welcomed the coup and acknowledged waging a “diplomatic campaign urging Europe and the United States to support the military-backed government in Egypt despite its deadly crackdown on Islamist protesters.”

“[R]emains unclear?” Who’s he kidding? Erdogan has a history of such outbursts. But then Mackey suggests that since Israel prefers al-Sisi to Morsi after the fact it’s almost as if Israel conspired to get Morsi removed from office by pointing to a news report that exaggerated Israel’s efforts regarding Egypt.

Like the Lebanese political analyst, Erdogan had no basis for his Jew-centric conspiracy, but the New York Times reporter provided the support to demonstrate that maybe the lunacy wasn’t so irrational.

From these three cases a pattern emerges. When the Times is sympathetic to a cause, they accept claims coming from its partisans without checking. But they demand rigor from causes that they’re hostile towards.

In terms of Israel, that means the craziest charges against Israel will be repeated uncritically and for Israel’s enemies the most absurd sentiment expressed will remain unexamined.

The New York Times believes that Israel is preventing President Obama from Doing the Right Thing in Egypt

It wasn’t just one article over the weekend. No fewer than four articles in the New York Times over the past few days have made the case that Israel values its security more than it does freedom for Egyptians. While any country would reasonably put the safety of its own citizens ahead of other concerns, the New York Times makes it appear unseemly. At a time when the United States is uncertain what approach to take, the reports present a selfish Israel attempting to impose its preferences on those who are struggling to do the right thing.

Israel Escalating Efforts re Egypt, unlike Obama, does not have "any illusions" about democracy in Egypt http://t.co/MpWGUOJcXj

— David D. Kirkpatrick (@ddk_nyc) August 19, 2013

The most explicit of these articles was Jodi Rudoren’s, Israel Escalating Efforts to Shape Allies’ Strategy:

The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of an edict from the prime minister not to discuss the Egyptian crisis, said Israeli ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and other capitals would lobby foreign ministers. At the same time, leaders here will press the case with diplomats from abroad that the military is the only hope to prevent further chaos in Cairo.

With the European Union planning an urgent review of its relations with Egypt in a meeting Monday, the message, in part, is that concerns about democracy and human rights should take a back seat to stability and security because of Egypt’s size and strategic importance.

The article quotes a number of critics of Israel’s perceived policy. An Israeli academic named Yoram Meital was particularly brutal.

“The Obama administration took a stand that has a lot to do with universal values. Of course, killing hundreds of protesters in this brutal way should be condemned. If we study the Israeli perspective, then these universal values are secondary to the top priorities of security and security.”

Interestingly, two former Israeli ambassadors to Egypt interviewed by Rudoren contradicted the fundamental premise of the article. Both said that Israel was handling Egypt with an appropriate amount of discretion. Israel Matzav cleverly deduces that the likely source for Rudoren’s story isn’t an Israeli as she claims, but someone from Washington.

I thought the tweet above from David Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief of the New York Times, was dismissive of Ambassador Yitzchak Levanon’s statement about “illusions” the West has about the possibility Egypt has for democracy. Leslie Gelb provided a welcome rebuttal.

It's time to hold our noses and back Egypt's military, writes Leslie H. Gelb http://t.co/FQd7KwZKaW

— The Daily Beast (@thedailybeast) August 18, 2013

Where are the reminders about how President George W. Bush paved the way for free elections in the Gaza Strip, how Hamas won, and how, then, democracy there came to an end and terrorism made a full comeback?

In any case, the theme of Rudoren’s article was repeated several times in three other New York Times reports.

How American Hopes for a Deal in Egypt Were Undercut:

The violent crackdown has left Mr. Obama in a no-win position: risk a partnership that has been the bedrock of Middle East peace for 35 years, or stand by while longtime allies try to hold on to power by mowing down opponents. From one side, the Israelis, Saudis and other Arab allies have lobbied him to go easy on the generals in the interest of thwarting what they see as the larger and more insidious Islamist threat. From the other, an unusual mix of conservatives and liberals has urged him to stand more forcefully against the sort of autocracy that has been a staple of Egyptian life for decades.

Leaving Military Aid Intact, U.S. Takes Steps to Halt Economic Help to Egypt:

Israel and several Arab counties have lobbied the United States not to cut off aid, arguing that the army is still the best hope to stop Egypt from slipping into chaos and that the need for stability should outweigh, for now, concerns about democracy and human rights.

Egyptian Court Is Said to Order That Mubarak Be Released:

Israeli ambassadors in Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Brussels and other capitals planned to advance the argument that the military was the only hope to prevent further chaos in Cairo. On another diplomatic front, ambassadors from the 28-member European Union planned to meet on Monday to review the bloc’s relationship with Egypt, confronting a similar question of whether stability and security outweigh considerations relating to human rights and democracy.

To some degree these articles are all written from the perspective that the President really wants to do the right thing (and cut aid) but powerful forces, such as the Israeli government, are pushing back against his better instincts.

https://twitter.com/joelengel/status/369103148591222784

A parallel Washington Post article, Obama balances goals in Egypt, by contrast, downplays Israel’s role:

Many lawmakers back Obama’s cautious approach. So do Israel and powerful Persian Gulf nations that oppose ousted president Mohamed Morsi’s Muslim Brotherhood and are willing to bail out Egypt’s drowning economy.

For that matter, the Washington Post has Israel and Obama on the same side of the issue!

This spin of the New York Times isn’t exactly new.

At the end of July an analysis, U.S. Balancing Act With Egypt Grows Trickier presented the administration’s options as being limited by Israel, though a bit more subtly.

For the Obama administration, the problem is not simply its relationship with the Egyptian military but also with Israel, whose security interests are weighing particularly heavily on administration officials as they try to nurture a new round of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel depends on Egyptian troops to root out Islamic extremists in the Sinai Peninsula, and Israeli officials have publicly and privately urged the United States not to cut off the aid, which underpins the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Yet Saturday’s attacks on members of the Muslim Brotherhood, which left more than 80 people dead, combined with signs that the generals are paying little heed to American officials, have made it increasingly difficult for President Obama to keep striking the balance between security and democracy, according to several analysts.

Again, it is Israel that prevents Obama’s ability to strike a proper “balance between security and democracy,” as if it were such a simple and clear issue.

https://twitter.com/JustLuai/status/368484721950343168

Presenting Israel as an impediment to liberalization in the Arab world and in Egypt, specifically, goes back further still. At the beginning of the Arab Spring, Thomas Friedman wrote Postcard from Cairo Part 2:

Rather than even listening to what the democracy youth in Tahrir Square were saying and then trying to digest what it meant, this Israeli government took two approaches during the last three weeks: Frantically calling the White House and telling the president he must not abandon Pharaoh – to the point where the White House was thoroughly disgusted with its Israeli interlocutors – and using the opportunity to score propaganda points: “Look at us! Look at us! We told you so! We are the only stable country in the region, because we are the only democracy.’’

The past two and a half years – with the violence and instability sweeping Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Iraq – have borne out the attitude that Friedman (and his source in the administration, if there was one) so easily dismissed. Israel wisely stayed out of the fray then (if Israel had said that it supported the protesters the Mubarak regime would have used that to discredit the protests) and is quietly pursuing diplomacy now.

There’s nothing wrong with that, except in the eyes of the New York Times.

Attention Deficit Peace Process Disorder

Last week Thomas Friedman wrote a paean to John Kerry’s peacemaking, Daring to fail.

In the middle of the article he presented the same sort of “concern” for Israel that Secretary of State Kerry did.

Let’s start with a small item in Britain’s Independent newspaper on July 24, which began: “He once sang, ‘You Gotta Get Outta This Place,’ but now Eric Burdon is not even turning up at all having deciding to withdraw from a planned concert in Israel. … The Animals frontman, whose hits include ‘House of the Rising Sun,’ and ‘San Franciscan Nights,’ had been due to perform alongside local Israeli bands in Binyamina. … However, in a statement, Mr. Burdon’s management, said: ‘We’ve been receiving mounting pressure, including numerous threatening e-mails, daily. …’” Burdon was just the latest of a rising number of artists and intellectuals who have started boycotting Israel over the occupation issue.

First of all as even Friedman acknowledged, Burdon’s cancellation was due to “threatening e-mails.” This wasn’t an example of protesting Israeli policies. Second of all the stated purpose of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement isn’t co-existence; it’s no Israel. In one paragraph, while professing his concern for Israel, Friedman accepted threats as an acceptable way to oppose Israeli policies and validated those seeking to destroy Israel as legitimate.

Oh, and Friedman didn’t even bother to keep up with the news. Burdon, in the end, reversed himself, ignored the threats and played in Israel. In other words Friedman’s argument was obsolete before his fingers hit the keyboard. Wasn’t he paying attention?

@andyrNYT your @tomfriedman falsely wrote that Eric Burdon boycotted Israel. when Burdon actually performed there. Correction?

— Jubel Foster (@JubelFoster) August 10, 2013

But it isn’t just the news that Friedman ignored; he ignored his own ideas!

Four years ago, Friedman hailed the advent of “Fayyadism.” Based on the aspirations of the recently appointed Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, Friedman wrote:

Fayyadism is based on the simple but all-too-rare notion that an Arab leader’s legitimacy should be based not on slogans or rejectionism or personality cults or security services, but on delivering transparent, accountable administration and services.

Fayyadism, though, came to an end four months ago, not in any way due to Israel, as Friedman would have it, but because of the corruption and authoritarianism of Mahmoud Abbas.

So no good governance option available for the foreseeable future, why is Friedman pushing Israel to make peace with Abbas? Maybe “Fayyadism,” at least as Friedman presented it was a good idea, but in practice Fayyad had no constituency. The past twenty the Palestinian leadership, haven’t been preparing their constituents for peace and coexistence, but for continued conflict. The basic ingredient for coexistence is public support, something neither Abbas nor, his predecessor, Yasser Arafat ever sought to build. “Fayyadism,” the thin reed upon which Friedman contended Israel could achieve peace no longer exists, but he persists that Israel must make peace with the relic of “Arafatism.”

Friedman paid no real attention to his concept of “Fayyadism.”

The Palestinians Never Wanted Fayyadism – by @tobincommentary @Commentary – http://t.co/o00cB3HY

— Commentary Magazine (@Commentary) February 14, 2013

In 2002, Friedman wrote his most famous column in which he alleged that (then) Crown Prince Abdullah was going to introduce a peace plan which would promise Israel full recognition (nebulously defined) for a full withdrawal (specifically detailed) from all territories captured in 1967, disregarding the intent of UN Resolution 242.

But who was Israel to rely on for this peace? Why Hosni Mubarak, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, Moammar Qaddafi and other Arab strongmen, who are now out of favor. In fact after the revolution that swept Mubarak from office, Friedman mocked Israel:

Let’s start with Israel. For the last 30 years, Israel enjoyed peace with Egypt wholesale — by having peace with just one man, Hosni Mubarak. That sale is over. Today, post-Mubarak, to sustain the peace treaty with Egypt in any kind of stable manner, Israel is going to have to pay retail. It is going to have to make peace with 85 million Egyptians. The days in which one phone call by Israel to Mubarak could shut down any crisis in relations are over.

Ten years after browbeating Israel for not reacting more favorably to a peace guaranteed by a bunch of authoritarian Arab rulers, he mocked Israel for trusting one of them.

Whether it’s his own idea, or one he adopts, Friedman is really good at using it to claim that Israel’s not interested in peace. When the idea is no longer relevant, Friedman just forgets. When it comes to the peace process (and, especially blaming Israel) it’s like he has ADD.

RT @PajamasMedia: John Rosenthal: Democracy of Jew Hatred? More Evidence of Anti-Semitism at #Egypt Protests http://bit.ly/fWuC4q

— William Daroff (@Daroff) February 9, 2011

But Friedman isn’t the only party who has focus issues when it comes to the Middle East.

Yossi Shain wrote at Ynet:

The Obama administration, which has excelled in leading from behind (in Libya, for example) is not leading at all. There is a reason why it is focusing on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as a possible bright side that may boost its status in the region. This situation is sensitive, dangerous and even explosive. The US administration’s urgent need to bring about an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians makes Washington less patient and less sensitive to nuances. This may create unnecessary pressure which may also project on Washington’s ability and motivation to act vis-à-vis the Iranian issue.

Robert O. Freedman wrote similarly, if less harshly in the Baltimore Sun:

One can only applaud the restarting of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank. Yet, given the other problems the United States currently faces in the Middle East — crises in Egypt, Syria and Iraq, to mention only the most obvious ones — it is an open question as to whether Secretary of State John Kerry should have spent so much time on Israel-Palestinian peace talks, having visited the area no fewer than six times in the first six months following his appointment, while the U.S. has let the other problems in the region worsen.

The difference between Friedman and the latter two analyses, is that Friedman ignores his own ideas; the others note that the Obama administration has ignored more serious issues to focus on the peace process.

It seems that, one way or another, an element of pushing for the peace process right requires one to ignore one’s own faulty assumptions or more significant international problems.

Forgetting the Dangers Posed by the Muslim Brotherhood

What should the American response to the latest outbreak of violence in Egypt be?

U.S. Pulls Out of Egypt’s Bright Star War Game "Cairo's brutality highlights U.S. fecklessness despite billions… http://t.co/COLolJDG5o

— Michael Yon (@Michael_Yon) August 15, 2013

Not entirely surprisingly, the editors in the New York Times call for a complete cutoff of aid in Military Madness in Cairo:

But the major blame rests with General Sisi. He seized power from a democratically elected government. He controls the security forces that have persecuted and brutalized political opponents. And he approved orders for heavily armed forces to use deadly force against peaceful protesters with a very legitimate political grievance — the ouster and secret detention of Egypt’s first democratically elected president.

Washington’s influence on Egyptian public opinion generally is limited. That has less to do with the low-key tone Mr. Obama has taken than with the preceding decades of uncritical United States support for past dictators like Mr. Mubarak and the military forces supporting them, to the neglect of most of Egypt’s 84 million people. It is past time for Mr. Obama to start correcting that imbalance. Suspending assistance to Egypt’s anti-democratic military would be a good place to start.

While the editorial had some mild criticism of the Muslim Brotherhood, the criticism was limited to blaming them for not negotiating a peaceful end to the confrontation and failing to reach out to minorities. Morsi’s incompetence, his power grabs, his brutal suppression of protests and his indifference to Copts are all ignored. (This was much worse than simply failing to reach out.)

The editorial, reflected the reporting of its Cairo correspondent, which was generally sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood. (See memeorandum for more.)

Despite carnage, Muslim Brothers win little sympathy in Cairo: CAIRO (Reuters) – Normally crammed with cars an… http://t.co/SDM8MoYnpK

— reuterswire (@reuterswire) August 15, 2013

Daveed Gartenstein-Ross writes that the interim military government has crossed a line, and now It’s Time to Threaten Egypt’s Aid:

Instead, the U.S. should offer a firm and concrete ultimatum that future aid is conditioned on Egypt’s undertaking a series of changes. For starters, the Egyptian regime should unequivocally apologize for the slaughter of protesters; the officers who ordered Wednesday’s massacre should be held to account and court-martialed; and there should be no further willful mass killings. If Egypt doesn’t comply, 100 percent of the U.S.’s military aid should be suspended.

There are costs to cutting off aid. The U.S. would lose its leverage over Egypt — although leverage seems to have no value if it can’t be used at a time like this. The U.S. also risks losing valuable intelligence that Egypt’s military would otherwise provide about jihadist groups in the Sinai.

But the costs are worth it. The status quo is simply too problematic, pragmatically and morally. It’s time to threaten Egypt’s aid — and, if necessary, to suspend it.

Gartenstein-Ross’s suggestion sounds reasonable but what if conditioning the aid on real reforms, has an a negative side effect?

WaPo's @ahauslohner describes being pinned down by crossfire and chaos today in Cairo http://t.co/7O0V66PjUA

— John McQuaid (@johnmcquaid) August 15, 2013

Ralph Peters, on the other hand declares, This blood is on the hands of Muslim Brotherhood:

Is the Egyptian military an ideal ally? Nope. But it’s a far better bet than Obama’s support of the Muslim Brotherhood turned out to be.

The danger now is that the administration and naïfs in Congress will cut aid to the Egyptian military and curl up into a snit. That would only make the Egyptians who want a reasonably free, generally tolerant and ultimately democratic Egypt even madder at us. And Egypt’s the most important Arab country.

Do we really need to make additional enemies in the region? Of moderates and secularists? In a quest to be “fair” to fanatics?

Last week Barry Rubin made a related point:

Let’s be frank: the Egyptian army did a great service not just to Egypt’s people but also to the U.S. government, because it saved its strategic balance in the Middle East.

Updated: Vice president quits as raids on Morsi backers kill scores in Egypt http://t.co/IxqnnUVL3f

— The New York Times (@nytimes) August 14, 2013

While it’s hard to be sympathetic to Egypt’s military government after yesterday’s violence, is it really the worst option for Egypt? Is it really the worst option for America’s strategic interests? Did the Muslim Brotherhood make violence inevitable? Would cutting aid simply send a signal to the current government or would it strengthen the Muslim Brotherhood? It’s important to recall that despite Morsi being the first democratically elected president of Egypt, he effectively engineered a coup of his own last year.

The certitude with which some commentators insist that the current situation is intolerable contrasts with their relative silence over Morsi’s power grab last year. It also ignores the Erdogan’s consolidation of power and erosion of freedoms in Turkey. It ignores the ongoing targeting of opposition figures in Tunisia, too.

Both Turkey and Tunisia are ruled by supposedly moderate Islamist parties. Would the continued rule of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt followed the same trajectory of increasing government power and decreasing liberty if the army hadn’t intervened?

On his Majesty’s not-so-Secret Peace Process Service

For the third time in two weeks we have a report about Secretary of State Kerry’s concern for Israel. First in the New York Times:

With the Palestinians poised to take their claim for statehood to the International Criminal Court and United Nations bodies, American officials say the two sides were facing a downward spiral in which the Israelis would respond by cutting off financing to the Palestinian territories and European nations might curtail their investment in Israel, further isolating the Israelis.

Then it was in the Times of Israel:

An optimistic-sounding Kerry asked the Jewish leaders for their help in supporting the newly restarted talks, The Times of Israel learned, saying that he feared for Israel’s future if a peace deal is not reached.

Yesterday it was Jeffrey Goldberg:

Kerry, capitalizing on this anxiety, has warned Netanyahu in recent weeks that if the current peace talks bear no fruit, Israel may soon be facing an international delegitimization campaign — in his words — “on steroids.”

This is not the behavior of someone who’s concerned. Mahmoud Abbas’s international campaign against Israel is a violation of the principle of direct negotiations that supposedly underlies the peace process. Kerry, as America’s top diplomat, has the power to use words, or, if those fail, soft power to dissuade Abbas from doing so. He has chosen, instead, to stand aside.

In trying to build Jewish-American support for his peace plan, Kerry is now trying to build it among American Jews. First he broadcast his message to Jewish-American liberals through the New York Times. But they were probably a receptive audience anyway. Then he went to the Jewish leaders with a soft sell, though promising more vigorous lobbying later. Then he went to Jeffrey Goldberg, who has on a number of occasions, faithfully carried the administration’s message for them. Goldberg’s audience is different from the first. They might be more skeptical but Goldberg isn’t a knee jerk liberal, so his support matters.

Still in all this messaging something’s missing: The Washington Post. There has obviously been reporting on Kerry’s initiative, after all he’s the Secretary of State and this is clearly a priority of the administration. But in the past month there have been about two op-eds about the peace process and no unsigned editorials about it. (In contrast the New York Times, which has featured numerous staff editorial, a Thomas Friedman column, a series of Roger Cohen columns telling Israel how important it is to make peace and assorted op-eds too.)

Why the disinterest at the Washington Post? I can think of two reasons. In 2010 when someone publicized a building tender for Jerusalem while Vice President Biden was visiting, the Obama administration made it into a major diplomatic incident. But the Washington Post didn’t approve.

But Mr. Obama risks repeating his previous error. American chastising of Israel invariably prompts still harsher rhetoric, and elevated demands, from Palestinian and other Arab leaders. Rather than join peace talks, Palestinians will now wait to see what unilateral Israeli steps Washington forces. Mr. Netanyahu already has made a couple of concessions in the past year, including declaring a partial moratorium on settlements. But on the question of Jerusalem, he is likely to dig in his heels — as would any other Israeli government. If the White House insists on a reversal of the settlement decision, or allows Palestinians to do so, it might land in the same corner from which it just extricated itself.

Of course there was a reason for the misgivings expressed in 2010. Jackson Diehl, a member of the editorial board, profiled Mahmoud Abbas shortly after President Obama was elected.

Abbas and his team fully expect that Netanyahu will never agree to the full settlement freeze — if he did, his center-right coalition would almost certainly collapse. So they plan to sit back and watch while U.S. pressure slowly squeezes the Israeli prime minister from office. “It will take a couple of years,” one official breezily predicted. Abbas rejects the notion that he should make any comparable concession — such as recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, which would imply renunciation of any large-scale resettlement of refugees.

I don’t know if the Washington Post sidelined itself or if its skepticism has meant that the administration won’t use it for its Middle East messaging.

It’s also important to remember that when Abbas, after Obama failed to force Netanyahu from office or change his position on settlements, announced that he would reject direct negotiations and seek international pressure on Israel in an op-ed in the New York Times in May, 2011. The Obama administration didn’t exercise any diplomatic leverage against Abbas or even condemn this rejection of the premise of the peace process.

When Kerry says he is worried about Israel’s isolation, he is shedding crocodile tears. He could use his position to fight Israel’s isolation, but that is not his or the administration’s interest. According to report in Ha’aretz, an EU official said that the administration gave “tacit support” to Europe’s recent restrictions on awards to Israeli concerns in Judea and Samaria.

It’s hard to say that Kerry is “worried” about Israel’s isolation when he and the administration are working actively to increase that isolation.

What is clear that the New York Times and Jeffrey Goldberg have taken to carrying the administration’s water. Their job is to advance the president’s agenda regardless of the consequences. Mahmoud Abbas rejected a peace offer from Ehud Olmert. Since 2009, he has played Mr. Passive-Aggressive regarding the peace process and the administration and its loyal messengers have seeming rewarded his obstinacy.

Terrorism is Diplomacy by Other Means

Yesterday I wondered Does John Kerry worry about a Palestine that reveres such monsters as the murderer of Nissim Toledano?

If he worried about Israel’s future, did he worry about a state that was based of violence and terror?

The impetus for my curiosity was Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks last week in front of a number Jewish American leaders as reported by the Times of Israel:

An optimistic-sounding Kerry asked the Jewish leaders for their help in supporting the newly restarted talks, The Times of Israel learned, saying that he feared for Israel’s future if a peace deal is not reached.

Two weeks ago the New York Times reported:

With the Palestinians poised to take their claim for statehood to the International Criminal Court and United Nations bodies, American officials say the two sides were facing a downward spiral in which the Israelis would respond by cutting off financing to the Palestinian territories and European nations might curtail their investment in Israel, further isolating the Israelis.

The peace process, which began twenty years ago, was based on two premises on the Palestinian side. One was is that they would renounce violence; something that at least Hamas has never done. (It’s something that Fatah did, but didn’t mean.) The other, is that it would negotiate directly with Israel.

So Kerry worried about Israel’s future if peace was not achieved; but not enough that he would object to the Palestinians seeking to focus international pressure on Israel and violating a fundamental commitment of its leadership two decades ago. Rather he threw up his hands and worried about how the Palestinian perfidy would affect Israel.

It gets worse.

I wondered how would Secretary Kerry react to the celebrations the Palestinians have planned to greet the murderers Israel was freeing in order to restart the peace talks he so desperately wanted? Could a society that – not just tolerated, but – celebrated such barbarity really live in peace with its neighbor? In other words, would Kerry acknowledge the premise underlying his frenetic diplomacy was hopelessly flawed? Could he?

I think we have an answer.

Yesterday Ha’aretz reported that the PA’s foreign ministry is circulating letters claiming that Israeli ministers are the terrorists, not the prisoners (h/t Oren Kessler):

One of the letters relayed by Palestinian ambassadors around the world was obtained by Haaretz. The letter, which was distributed by the Palestinian Embassy in Santiago, Chile, a day after the cabinet’s decision on the prisoner release, claimed that Israel is the one terrorizing the Palestinians, and not vice-versa. “A terrorist is someone who forcefully occupies the other’s land, expels him and comes to live in his place,” the letter read, “…not the Palestinian political prisoner, the freedom fighter.”

This is beyond the pale. This goes beyond the disgraceful spectacle of Israel’s “peace partner” referring to an unrepentant, deceased terrorist as a “pure soul.” This is telling the rest of the world, “ignore the decades of terror we perpetrated against Israel because it was all justified. The only violation of international law in the Middle East, is the Israeli occupation.” Maybe diplomats in Europe and John Kerry will not state things so directly, but they believe it.

If John Kerry were a competent diplomat he would have immediately called the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas out and said that terrorism is never justified. What did Kerry say today?

As you know, or as the world I hope knows, the United States of America views all of the settlements as illegitimate.

That’s unqualified. He didn’t make exceptions for “settlements” in areas that Israel is expected to hold in any final peace deal. He didn’t say “unhelpful” but “illegitimate.” But the Palestinian effort to whitewash hacking an elderly man to death with an ax as “justified” didn’t merit a response.

It is not like Kerry is ignorant of the incitement of the PA. In a letter PM Netanyahu sent to Kerry a few days ago, he wrote:

“Rather than educate the next generation of Palestinians to live in peace with Israel, this hate education lays the ground for continued violence, terror and conflict,” Netanyahu’s letter to Kerry stated, according to Israel Hayom.

The Palestinian effort to get the world to ignore the terror that brought their cause to the world’s attention and which they engage in to this day likely has been the most successful diplomatic initiative of all time. “Occupation” is the root of all evil (at least in Israel’s case, anywhere else it’s ignored); terrorism is of no import.

But that wasn’t how it was supposed to be.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry compiled the views of world leaders, diplomats and legal experts in the aftermath of the 6 Day War and the drafting of the resolution 242, which was to be the basis of the peace process. For example, here’s what Eugene Rostow, one of the drafters of 242, argued:

Eugene V. Rostow, Professor of Law and Public Affairs, Yale University, who, in 1967, was US Under-Secretary of State for Political Affairs:
“… Paragraph 1 (i) of the Resolution calls for the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces ‘from territories occupied in the recent conflict’, and not ‘from the territories occupied in the recent conflict’. Repeated attempts to amend this sentence by inserting the word ‘the’ failed in the Security Council. It is, therefore, not legally possible to assert that the provision requires Israeli withdrawal from all the territories now occupied under the cease-fire resolutions to the Armistice Demarcation lines.” (American Journal of International Law, Volume 64, September 1970, p. 69)

Notice a few things. The original intent of 242 was that Israel not be required to withdraw from all territories captured in 1967. Furthermore it was the consensus at the time that the 1967 boundaries were not secure for Israel. Also if you pay attention to what was said at the time, any peace was supposed to be achieved through negotiation.

This is all forgotten now. The thousands of Israelis who have been killed are forgotten. The word “terror” is forgotten. The main issue is “occupation.” This is the great diplomatic victory of the Palestinians. Maybe it’s the greatest one in history.

How did the Palestinians achieve this victory?

In 1999, the UN General Assembly decided that the Fourth Geneva Convention applied to the “occupied territories.”

International efforts led by the United States were successful in scaling down the July 15th special UN meeting in Geneva. The closed-door meeting lasted a mere 45 minutes. However, a resolution was unanimously passed stating that the Fourth Geneva Convention does apply to Israeli settlements in the “occupied territories.”

This was likely when the Palestinian emphasis on “occupation” started to gain traction. To be sure, there was always a sentiment among the elites that “we understand the Palestinians’ grievance, but terror is no way to achieve their goals.” But even with that caution, the understanding implicitly extended to the terror too. Now was the first formal declaration that put “occupation” on the same level as terrorism.

The problem is once again, a misreading of the original intent of international law. Legal expert, Alan Baker recalls:

Similarly, international lawyer Prof. Julius Stone, in referring to the absurdity of considering Israeli settlements as a violation of Article 49(6), stated:

Irony would…be pushed to the absurdity of claiming that Article 49(6), designed to prevent repetition of Nazi-type genocidal policies of rendering Nazi metropolitan territories judenrein, has now come to mean that…the West Bank…must be made judenrein and must be so maintained, if necessary by the use of force by the government of Israel against its own inhabitants. Common sense as well as correct historical and functional context excludes so tyrannical a reading of Article 49(6.)10

(Judenrein? Where did I hear that recently?)

What’s happened is that premise of the peace process has changed from Resolution 242 to a willful misinterpretation of the fourth Geneva Convention. Rejecting terror and direct negotiations are out. International pressure is in. I observed earlier that John Kerry has clearly rejected a twenty year old assumption of the peace process. His recent actions show that he’s rejecting a lot more.

In the article reporting on Kerry’s concern for Israel’s future, it was also reported that Kerry plans to push American Jewish leaders in the run up to the High Holidays to build support for his peace plan among American Jews. I hope that if he calls this group back (or any other group) someone will ask him how they can sell his plan when he is unconcerned with the murderous ideology of the Palestinian Authority. Why does the Secretary of State believe that giving sovereignty to those who revere terrorism will bring peace or stability to the region?

Kerry’s failure to condemn the Palestinian Authority is the latest example of their great diplomatic success.