A New York Times editorial on President Obama’s Israel speech asserts, “In recent years, Israel has built so many settlements that the options for finding a two-state solution are dwindling.”
The Times gives no evidence to back up this claim, which appears predicated on the strange assumption that a Palestinian Arab state would not allow Jews to live within its borders. It also suggests, falsely, that the main obstacle to a two-state solution is Israeli settlements, rather than, say, refusal by the Palestinian Arabs to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
Another sentence in the Times editorial also deals with the settlement issue: “We should note that rockets were fired from Gaza into southern Israel on Thursday — a reckless and provocative act — while the Israelis showed good faith by avoiding the sorts of defiant acts, like announcing new settlements, that have marred American visits in the past.” This draws a kind of parallel between shooting rockets aimed to kill Israeli civilians and building homes for Jewish Israelis. It’s a false equivalence, because one is an act of terrorism and another is something that there is nothing wrong with.
From: The Wall Street Journal
Obama assured Israelis that they have a willing peace partner in Palestinian President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. But you wouldn’t know it from Abbas’ remarks Thursday. The man who is supposed to represent the moderate side of local politics delivered a verbal salvo against Israel’s alleged “violence, occupation, settlements, arrests, siege and denial of refugee rights,” which isn’t mood music for negotiations to resume.
Abbas continues to advocate “reconciliation” with Hamas, which remains unreconciled to Israel’s existence and firmly in control of Gaza. Obama’s best intentions can’t deliver peace until enough Palestinians decide they want it too.