An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu

President Obama has set clear and appropriate priorities ahead of the visit to Washington on May 18 by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Speaking to Jewish-American activists last week, Vice President Joseph Biden conceded, “You’re not going to like my saying this,” and then he laid out the administration’s list.

If there is going to be a serious peace effort with Palestinians, Israel must work toward a two-state solution, Mr. Biden said. It must freeze further settlement construction in the West Bank and dismantle roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns not needed for security. Israel must also grant Palestinians more responsibility for security to the extent that they combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel, he added.

This should not come as news to Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Obama and his aides have been telegraphing their intentions for weeks. But the Israeli leader’s responses have been unconvincing and insufficient. Growing tensions were obvious when his White House meeting slid later into May — after Mr. Obama hosted Arab leaders.

In his video speech to the same activist group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Mr. Netanyahu said he wants peace with the Palestinians. He even committed to negotiations “without any delay and without any preconditions.” But it rings hollow. He has resisted — and his foreign minister and unity government partner, Avigdor Lieberman, has openly derided — the two-state solution that is the only sensible basis for a lasting settlement that could anchor a regional peace. On Monday, the 15-member United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted a statement endorsing the two-state solution.

Other differences also threaten next week’s meeting. One is the president’s decision to reach out to Iran, which has made Israel uneasy. Mr. Netanyahu — perhaps trying to ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere — hinted that he might condition peace efforts on Mr. Obama’s success in ending Tehran’s nuclear program.

Stopping Iran’s nuclear program is crucial. Mr. Obama’s approach — a serious diplomatic overture followed by tougher sanctions if talks fail — is risky but worth it. Yes, the clock is ticking as Tehran’s capability improves. But Mr. Netanyahu should not artificially constrain Mr. Obama’s initiative. And Mr. Obama must discourage any move by Mr. Netanyahu to lead Israel, or push the United States, into unnecessary military action. Continue reading here>>

THE DECONSTRUCTION:
The NY Times editorial section has traditionally been the U.S. media's symbolic cheerleader when it comes to the Palestinian cause. This above opinion does not break with custom, rather it peddles an imbalanced opinion, through a high-brow medium; using an analytic approach by attempting a policy styled critique of Israeli-U.S. relations. Far from embracing Israel as a fellow democracy, strategic asset and reliable ally, the NY Times opinion describes Israel as a client-state that is merely a hindrance to U.S. global interests. Though the actual language of this opinion may be benign, it is no less potent in casting Israel as the party that must be held to account, the one responsible for those necessary steps to "move forward", and in the case of Mr. Netanyahu, to be outright countered by Obama.

The notion of a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict outside the confines of a two-state paradigm is completely ignored and without address in the opinion. “The two-state solution that is the only sensible basis for a lasting settlement that could anchor a regional peace” By refusing the possibility of any sort of U.S. shift in the same direction as the Israeli public, provides the author an intellectual platform to cast a bleak political context where there is a fraying of relations between Israel and the U.S.. This total refusal to treat the election of the Nationalist camp in the recent Israeli elections as a possible cue for a diplomatic paradigm shift is completely disregarded. Rather, this opinion is  pre-occupied only with the efforts required in combating & reigning in the democratically elected Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, the “smooth talker” with his “unconvincing and insufficient”policies. 

Though this piece may be an opinion on the Israeli Prime Minister, the wider context (the conflict) that his policy is attempting to correct cannot be ignored. More clearly, the Palestinian's cannot be absent as per this editorial, when deciphering the do’s and dont's of policy in this historic conflict. If one were to pay even scant attention to the editorial, there is a host of requirements, and a bevy of determinations for Israel to settle this conflict. Though the remarks tend to get stingy and restrained when addressing the Palestinian reforms and remedies for its part in the conflict.  The only actual statement to hold the Palestinian side to account in this piece does not even address the Palestinian responsibility to Israel, but rather a pathetic remark on the internal struggles of the Palestinian, “There are huge obstacles to peacemaking, including the rivalry between the ruling Fatah and militant Hamas Palestinian factions.”

Holding only one party accountable for the changes required to an end of hostilities in this conflict can only be regarded as facile, incomplete and dangerous. 

The New York Times presents an opinion filled to the brim with intellectual myopia. This irrelevance can be traced to the articles severe dissociation of the Palestinian role in this dispute, this demostrates a broader western journalistic hubris that prevents an even-keeled approach to the conflict. On the contrary, the opinion displays a marked hostility to the will of a fellow democracy, the mandate of its elected leadership, and a country fighting the same war on terror as the U.S.

Finally, the blatant disregard to the known policy nuances required in properly analyzing the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, is in this case, extreme. The sheer lack of a context, a backdrop for Mr. Netanyahu's "agenda" makes one wander if this summary was conjured up by a mediocre high-school student or the editorial staff of a national news organ. Frankly, I expected more from the Grey Lady when it comes to style, expected as much when it comes to substance.