Posted: 19 Oct 2011 06:15 AM PDT
An absurd editorial in the NYT:
Just this one paragraph oozes anti-Israel bias.
Couldn't the NYT have equally have the concern that Abbas would become ideologically more militant as a result of the deal to gain more street cred among the happy hordes of terrorist worshippers who came out to celebrate yesterday?
No, their fear is only that Israel, by showing flexibility, will become more intransigent - without a word about Abbas' preconditions.
Yes, those new preconditions, added only a year or two ago, that Israel must stop all building in Judea, Samaria and most of Jerusalem before negotiations. The NYT is calling these "necessary compromises" but in fact it is evidence of the PLO's strategy of saying no to everything until it gets what it wants, unilaterally.
Israel and Hamas were never in the same room during the Shalit negotiations, as far as I can tell - Hamas bragged that they didn't even sign the same piece of paper as Israel.
And the NYT is using this as evidence that Israel is more amenable to negotiating with Hamas than with the PLO? Even when Israel has been the one party that has been begging for negotiations to restart and the PLO has been the one refusing?
Incidentally, Hamas was willing to give something up - Gilad Shalit. The PLO has offered nothing. Perhaps if the Times had ever pressured Abbas to compromise on land, there would have been peace by now. Instead, by writing editorials like this, they give Abbas more reason to stick to his favorite word - "No."
The newspaper of record is twisting facts to fit its views, and this editorial proves it as much as it can be proven.
See also Jewlicious.
Now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has compromised with Hamas, we fear that to prove his toughness he will be even less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations. And we fear that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who were cut out of the swap altogether, will be further weakened.
Just this one paragraph oozes anti-Israel bias.
Couldn't the NYT have equally have the concern that Abbas would become ideologically more militant as a result of the deal to gain more street cred among the happy hordes of terrorist worshippers who came out to celebrate yesterday?
No, their fear is only that Israel, by showing flexibility, will become more intransigent - without a word about Abbas' preconditions.
Yes, those new preconditions, added only a year or two ago, that Israel must stop all building in Judea, Samaria and most of Jerusalem before negotiations. The NYT is calling these "necessary compromises" but in fact it is evidence of the PLO's strategy of saying no to everything until it gets what it wants, unilaterally.
One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas — which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages — why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?One "has" to ask that question?
Israel and Hamas were never in the same room during the Shalit negotiations, as far as I can tell - Hamas bragged that they didn't even sign the same piece of paper as Israel.
And the NYT is using this as evidence that Israel is more amenable to negotiating with Hamas than with the PLO? Even when Israel has been the one party that has been begging for negotiations to restart and the PLO has been the one refusing?
Incidentally, Hamas was willing to give something up - Gilad Shalit. The PLO has offered nothing. Perhaps if the Times had ever pressured Abbas to compromise on land, there would have been peace by now. Instead, by writing editorials like this, they give Abbas more reason to stick to his favorite word - "No."
The newspaper of record is twisting facts to fit its views, and this editorial proves it as much as it can be proven.
See also Jewlicious.
Posted: 19 Oct 2011 04:35 AM PDT
From IMRA:Raanan Gissin told IMRA today that the Palestinian prisoners being released today in the Shalit deal are signing the same standard form as was signed by prisoners released in the past.From Ma'an:
The following is IMRA's translation of the Hebrew version of the declaration signed by convicted Palestinians released by Israel. The text was provided to IMRA by the IDF Spokesperson's Office (the same text was signed by those who had not been sentenced yet with minor changes):
Declaration and Commitment
I the undersigned (name) (ID)
1. It was brought to my attention that beyond requirements and as a good will gesture by the Government of Israel, within the framework of its relations with the Palestinian government and the renewal of the efforts for peace, the military command decide to ease my sentence, subject to my signing this declaration and commitment.
2. I hereby declare that I oppose all terror and violent actions and I hereby commit to desist from all actions against the security of the State of Israel or the security of the region in general and include in this terror or violent activities, and support or aid to it, in any way including:
A. To desist from returning and carrying out a crime of the type of crimes that I was convicted of as well as any other crime;
B. Not to belong to a terror organization or illegal group of any kind;
C. Not to engage in inciting activities, and included in this incitement to carry out terror or act illegally against the peace process;
D. Not to be involved and not to support or aid terror activities against any person and any act of violence or action that may cause the public or any part of it damage or fear or any other damage;
E. To desist from illegally entering the area of Israel or the Israeli communities in the territories.
3. I am aware that the remainder of the prison sentence that I was sentenced by the court in the region is conditional, as of the day of my release, for the course of three years, and the condition is that I will not carry out a crime that could hurt the security of the area or the security of the State of Israel and including that desisting from any act of terror or violence and support or aid for such activities, in any way, as detained in Paragraph 2.
4. Likewise I am aware that if I violate a condition of the conditions of the release the court will have the right to activate the remainder of the sentence that was in effect prior to my release and to decide that I bear this punishment in addition to any other punishment that is imposed on me.
5. I hereby confirm that the wording of my commitment and declaration was explained to me in Arabic and that after its significance was made clear to me I signed the document out of my free will.
Date
Signature of the prisoner
Confirmation
I the undersigned Name Rank Personal Number Position
Released prisoners pledge to continue resistanceSounds like Israel can start rounding them up again.
(h/t Cheryl)
No comments:
Post a Comment