Tag Archives: 1967 lines

All the falsities that are fit to print

New York Times false facts about the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

On April 14, 2014, the New York Times published an editorial titled: In the Middle East, Time to Move On.

All The Falsities That Are Fit to PrintThe article is filled with false facts, expresses anti-Israel opinions and frequently uses anti-Israel sentiment.

New York Times false facts

While the New York Times is entitled to express its anti-Israel opinion and use anti-Israel sentiment – after all, it is an editorial – falsifying facts and bending the truth, especially for the purpose of supporting a biased opinion, is nothing short of lying.

Here are a few examples of the New York Times false facts (see highlighted text in the original New York Times article*):

(1) “In 2009, the administration focused on getting Israel to halt settlement building and ran into the obstinacy of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and resistance from the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to entering peace talks.

Flat out false.
On November 25, 2009, in a step characterized by top U.S. envoy for the region George Mitchell as “more than any Israeli government has done before, and [a decision that] can help move toward agreement between the parties“, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did agree to a 10-month settlement construction freeze (through Sep. 26, 2010) in the West Bank, yielding to the Obama administration pressure and the Palestinians demand. 

West Bank settlementThe Palestinian Authority rejected the gesture as being insignificant and despite the construction halt, continued to refuse to enter negotiations for almost 10 months into the construction-freeze period. When they finally entered negotiations on Sep. 2, 2010, they immediately threatened to exit them should the looming expiration of the construction-freeze period not be extended. When the 10-month settlement construction-freeze period elapsed and the halt was not extended – the Palestinians broke off the talks.

(2) “Since then, members of Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition government have tried to sabotage the talks.

Speculation, not a fact.
This speculative accusation has been put forward by Tzipi Livni, the head of a small left-wing faction (Hatnu-ah) that won only 6 seats (5%) in the Jan. 2013 elections to the 120-seat Israeli parliament.

Mahmoud Abbas (left) and Tzipi Livni (right)
Mahmoud Abbas (left) and Tzipi Livni (right).

The height of Livni’s political career was her Foreign Minister post under Prime Minister Sharon government of 2006, as a member of the ruling Kadima political faction.

After Sharon’s stroke, and Olmert’s (his successor as Prime Minister) decision to step down, Livni in Sep. 2008 won Kadima‘s leadership by a 1% margin (431 votes).

After Olmert’s resignation as Prime Minister, Livni was tasked in Sep. 2008 to form a government, but was unable to garner sufficient support in the Knesset (Israeli parliament).

New York Times false facts

In the following 2009 elections, Livni ran against Netanyahu. She was endorsed by the New York Times, and by the left-wing Israeli newspaper Ha-Aretz. Netanyahu endeded up forming a government following the elections, while Livni became the opposition leader. In Mar. 2012, Livni lost her primary elections in her Kadima faction by a wide margin (64.5% to her 35.5%) . She then resigned from the Knesset.

In Nov. 2012 Livni formed a new faction (Hatnu-ah) and ran against Netanyahu for prime-minister position in the Jan. 2013 elections, with its platform emphasizing on its aggressive push for a peace settlement with the Palestinians.

After winning only 6 seats (5%) in the Jan. 2013 elections to the 120-seat Israeli parliament, Livni joined Netanyahu’s government as Justice minister and head of Israeli negotiation team with the Palestinians.

(3) “The process broke down last month when Israel failed to release a group of Palestinian prisoners as promised and then announced 700 new housing units for Jewish settlement in a part of Jerusalem that Palestinians claim as the capital of a future state.”

An opinion, not a fact.
The process broke down because:

The Palestinians…
Refused to discuss any recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.
– Refused Kerry’s proposed framework which aimed for the formulation of a final agreement.
– Said “No” to Kerry’s request to agree to extend the talks beyond the looming April 29, 2014 deadline.
– Indicated clearly that all they were interested in was the release of the last batch of 28 terrorist before the deadline, after which they would walk away and take unilateral steps to gain international recognition as a state outside of an agreement with Israel.

Released Palestinian terrorists
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, second from left, waves with released Palestinian terrorists coming from Israeli jails during celebrations at Abbas’ headquarter in the West Bank town of Ramallah, October 30, 2013.

While Israel…
Released 78 Palestinian terrorist in 3 batches during the negotiation period as a gesture to the Palestinians in order to gain their consent to restart the talks brokered by Kerry.
– Never committed to halt construction in Jerusalem or the West Bank, thus has not violated the conditions under which the talks were held.
– Was prepared to accept Kerry’s proposed framework which aimed for the formulation of a final agreement.
– After realizing that the Palestinians – by their refusal to agree to the extension of talks and their threats to go to the UN – are not interested in continued negotiations but only in the release of their terrorists – Israel postponed the release of the last batch of terrorists while negotiating a broader deal that will tie such a release with the continuation of the negotiations.

(4) “…Palestinians responded by applying to join 15 international conventions and treaties. That move won’t get them a state, but it is legal

Rabin Clinton Arafat

Flat out false.
The Palestinians applying to join 15 international conventions and treaties was a violation of the terms of negotiations, as well as a violation of previous agreements with Israel in which Palestinians have committed not to take any unilateral steps outside the context of a negotiated agreement with Israel that have any effect of the political status of Palestine as an independent entity (1995 Oslo Interim Agreement Article XXXI Final Clauses 7).

(5) “…[Israel] took its own unilateral steps by announcing plans to deprive the financially strapped Palestinian Authority of about $100 million in monthly tax revenues

Flat out false.
The Israeli decision was to deduct Palestinian debt from the monthly transfer of tax collections, which typically amounts to about $100 million per month. Palestinians owe Israel hundreds of millions of dollars for electricity and hospital bills. There was no Israeli specific announcement as to the amount that would be withheld to cover Palestinian debt. 

Perhaps the New York Times needs to change its tag line.

New York Times new tag line

 

In the Middle East, Time to Move On.

 

Obama’s Growing List of Omitted Facts

In a speech on December 16, 2011 at the 71st general assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism, President Obama proudly mentioned a list of his administration’s actions in support of Israel as ‘facts’.

Some ‘facts’ he listed included…:

– “On my watch, the United States of America has led the way, from Durban to the United Nations, against attempts to use international forums to delegitimize Israel.”

– “In fact, I am proud to say that no U.S. administration has done more in support of Israel’s security than ours. None. Don’t let anybody else tell you otherwise. It is a fact.”

Obama's Speech at the Union for Reform Judaism
Here are some facts about the Obama Administration’s relations and support of Israel and handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – facts Obama has failed to mention in his speech:

Snubbing Netanyahu. On March 23, 2010, Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu visited President Obama in the White House.

Obama treated his guest to a series of slights. Photographs of the meeting were forbidden and an Israeli request to issue a joint-statement once it was over were turned down.

In the meeting, Obama has presented Netanyahu with a list of 13 demands designed both to the end the feud with his administration and to build Palestinian confidence ahead of the resumption of peace talks. When Netanyahu refused to heed to these demands – Obama had left the room to ‘have dinner with Michelle and the girls’ leaving Netanyahu and his aids all to themselves for over an hour in the Roosevelt Room.

As he left, Mr. Netanyahu was told to consider the ‘error of his ways’. “I’m still around,” Mr. Obama is quoted as having said. “Let me know if there is anything new.”

 

Panetta Reprimanding Israel.  It is well documented that it was the Palestinians who have walked out of direct peace negotiations with Israel back in October 2010.

PLO-confirms-Top
Speaking in Washington on December 2, 2011 at the Saban Conference, an annual forum sponsored by entertainment mogul Chaim Saban and the Brookings Institution, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta was asked: “Mr. Secretary, you made a strong statement about Israel’s responsibility to make peace. What steps should it [Israel] take now? Withdraw the Israeli army from Palestinian territories?” “No”, said Panetta, “Just get to the damn table!“.

 

 

Expressing Disdain for Netanyahu. The president of France, Nicolas Sarkozy, told President Obama that he could no longer bear Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel, and went on to call Mr. Netanyahu a “liar” in a private conversation overheard by several French journalists in November 2011 at the Group of 20 summit meeting in Cannes. Obama repliedYou are fed up with him, but I have to deal with him even more often than you.”

 

Obama’s Ambassador Blames Israel for Anti-Semitism. On November 30, 2011, in his introduction to a gathering about anti-Semitism in Europe titled: “Conference on Fighting Anti-Semitism in Europe: What is Next?” U.S. ambassador to Belgium Mr. Howard Gutman, said that Muslim hatred for Jews stemming from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should not be construed as anti-Semitism.

 

Imposing a Peace Arrangement on Israel.  In his aforementioned speech on December 16, 2011 at the 71st general assembly of the Union for Reform Judaism, President Obama declared that “Peace can’t be imposed from the outside. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them.”

Yet, in a different speech on May 19, 2001, Mr. Obama declared: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps…”

 

Insisting on Halt To Settlements as Pre-Condition to Peace Talks. In May 2009, after the first meeting in the White House between Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, President Obama has declared: “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward“.

Palestinians, who until that point had never made a total settlement freeze – including in areas beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem – a condition for negotiations, heard Obama and pounced. If this was what the American president was saying, how could they ask for anything less?

 

Hillary Clinton Scolds Netanyahu; David Axelrod blisters Israel on East Jerusalem Settlement ‘Affront’ while the Palestinian Authority Names a Public Square in a Terrorist’s Honor. While Obama administration’s officials are busy condemning Israel‘s decision to build some housing units in its own capital, and while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is busy scolding Prime Minister Netanyahu for 45 minutes over the phone, the Palestinian Authority dedicated a public square to the memory of a brutal murderer who in 1979 led the worst terrorist attack in Israel’s history, slaughtering 37 innocent civilians, including children, and the Obama administration is silent.

 

Breaking America’s Promise to Israel NOT to Call for its Return to 1967 Borders. In 2004, The Unites States of America made a promise to Israel that it would not be forced back to the pre-1967 lines.

In his speech on May 19, 2001, Mr. Obama declared: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps…”

A Broken Promise to our Ally

In 2004, The Unites States of America made a promise to Israel that it would not be forced back to the pre-1967 lines (which are the armistice lines of 1949).

In a letter dated April 14, 2004, in connection with the then-planned complete Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza strip, the President of the United States affirmed to the Prime Minister of Israel that "…it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949…"

Bush Letter to Sharon

This promise has now been broken by Barack Obama.

In his speech on May 19, 2011, Mr. Obama declared: "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps…"

 

 

These are the "1967 lines" Obama is referring too:

1967_borders_with_neighboring_countries