In an editorial, the New York Times questions whether Binyamin Netanyahu can be trusted to make peace. There is so much wrong with "Being a partner for peace", I could spend all day critiquing it. But one point stood out:
If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about being a partner for peace, he will not get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah faction -- as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. He will recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians -- and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them. He also will not start a preventive war with Iran.
So that's it, in order to prove that he's committed to peace, according to the Times, Netanyahu must trust a terrorist organization committed in word and deed to Israel's destruction to join a governemt with Fatah, which, at least, doesn't openly call for Israel's destruction. Why in there world is Hamas assumed to be a "partner for peace?" Does "qassam" mean "peace" in Arabic?
And the absurdity of the rest of the paragraph is unbelievable. Netanyahu would dictate to America? Who wrote this? Chas Freeman? And while the editors of the Times object to Israel starting a "preventive war" against Iran, they apparently don't object to Iran launching a war of any sort against Israel.
Despite the Times portrayal of Netanyahu's first term as Prime Minister he withdrew Israel from most of Hebron while Arafat collected foreign aid, arms, organized terror and incited his population against Israel. But somehow it's Netanyahu who has to prove his commitment to peace?
My Right Word dismisses the editorial with:
If peace is truly the goal and not some unadulterated anti-Israel agenda, well, who cares about the sanctity of a process?
Crossposted on Yourish.Posted by SoccerDad at March 27, 2009 6:12 AM