by Emanuel A. Winston, Mid East Analyst & Commentator
Once again the New York Times owners and editorial board, led by Andrew Rosenthal, Editorial Page Editor, have shown that they are not a newspaper but, rather a starkly liberal political party. In their November 3rd issue they title their editorial: “That Promised Peace Conference”. They go on to recommend a peace process through “arm-twisting” by America, knowing full well that they are ignoring the unbroken doctrine of Muslim Arab proclamations to end the existence of the Jewish State of Israel.
We already know that a string of Israeli leaders have tried appeasement, only to end up with broken agreements and thousands of dead Israelis. American and European leaders have been pushing for a Palestinian State – despite not a moment of peace from the Palestinian Muslim Arabs. Syria,
Iran, Iraq (under Saddam), Egypt for its own self-serving needs have all, in one way or another, supported war and terror against the non-Muslim state of Israel. Are we to believe what the New York Times says? The New York Times is no friend of Israel. But, are they so delusional that they believe the Arab Muslims will cease terror despite to fact that the mandate to war in the name of Allah, is embodied in their Koran?
I would add the same statement for Condoleezza Rice and George W. Bush, desperate for an exit strategy they could claim as their legacy. As a practical matter there is no room for two states on a bit of land that is 300 miles long and 50 miles wide. The Bush-Rice-Baker Road Map would bring the 50 miles down to 10,with all of Israel within rifle shot of the “peaceful Palestinian” Fatah – let alone Kassam Rockets from Gaza’s Hamas and Katyusha missiles from Lebanon’s Hezb’Allah.
The NYT editorial says a “Guarantee to use the full resources of the Palestinian Authority to help protect Israel from the future terrorist attacks is also essential”.
How kind of the NYT to think of or recommend that Fatah (presently under Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) and soon to be reunited with Hamas, would use their forces to protect Israelis. Do they think that the Palestinian Arab Muslims might continue to engage in terror?
The NYT tells us that, in their opinion, the U.S. would have to be at the negotiating table every step of the way so Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert could give up everything the Palestinians want including a divided Jerusalem.
When the NYT starts making recommendations, be assured they have already been in deep discussion with the Arabist State Department, with Rice leading point.
Is all this merely wishful thinking? No. They know that the Muslim Arab Palestinians and the Muslims in the surrounding neighboring states generally, will not give Israel a day of that empty word “Peace”. Because they, like the Taliban who have returned to Afghanistan, will never cease their Islamic march to Global Domination for Islam by Terror.
The NYT said: “Laudably, Mr. Bush proposed a six-fold increase in aid to the Palestinians whose government desperately needs the funds to prove that it is a viable alternative to Hamas.” What makes the NYT believe in the viability or desirability of Fatah over Hamas? It is no different. But, the NYT does believe that there should be, must be a halt to Israeli settlements. What would America do or feel if others moved in and stopped Americans from living in their homes on their own lands?
In Iraq will the Shi’ites armed by the Shi’ites of Iran cease their efforts to control Iraq? I think not. Does anyone believe the Palestinians will cease to follow their Charter’s demand to eliminate Israel and drive the Jews into the sea?
Neither the New York Times, the pro-Arab State Department, Condi Rice, George Bush, the U.N., the E.U., the Quartet believe the Arab nations will cease their efforts to liquidate Israel – which, of course, makes all of the above silent and not-so-silent partners with the Muslims of the world to try to eliminate the Jewish nation. If they succeed, they declare that they intend to control those countries into which they’ve infiltrated.