The New York Times, doing its imitation of the Palestinian news agency Wafa, has yet again misrepresented the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians who would, if only they could, cheerfully destroy the Jewish state. The Times provides what it calls a “news analysis” – more rigorous, presumably, than a mere report of facts — of the current relations between Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Biden, who, we all know, are not exactly on the best of terms. More on this Times “news analysis” can be found here: “The Real ‘Palestinian Territory’? New York Times-Land,” by Ira Stoll, Algemeiner, April 10, 2023:
A New York Times article labeled “news analysis,” about tension between President Biden and Prime Minister Netanyahu reports, “Mr. Netanyahu made no particular effort to hide his backing for President Donald J. Trump in the 2020 election, making clear his preference for an incumbent who gave him everything he asked for, including moving the United States Embassy to Jerusalem and paying little attention to the Palestinians while siding with Israel on its claims over Palestinian territory in the West Bank.”
“As is typical with Times articles about Israel, the article already carries one correction: “A correction was made on March 30, 2023: An earlier version of this article misstated where evacuated settlers would be allowed to return under a law passed by Israel’s Parliament. They would be able to go to four areas of the West Bank, not the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.”
In this scenario of a future where Jews would be forced from their homes all over the West Bank, and instead, made to move into four areas where the large “settlement blocs” are located in Judea and Samaria (a.k.a. the West Bank), to start their lives over again, it’s clear that the Times doesn’t question the justice of this uprooting of Israelis, which would be undertaken to satisfy the Palestinians’ liminal demand that almost all of the West Bank become Judenrein.
That correction, though, doesn’t do the full job of fixing the inaccuracies in the Times dispatch. To do that would require at least two additional corrections.
To start with, it’s not accurate that Trump gave Netanyahu “everything he asked for.” For example, as Jared Kushner disclosed in his book, the two leaders clashed over the timing of Israel annexing parts of the West Bank.
As president, Trump did formally approve of Israel’s annexation in 1980 of east Jerusalem, and of the Golan Heights in 1981. Furthermore, he shut down the PLO office in Washington, and, of course, in his most important pro-Israel move, he moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem. But he did not give his go-ahead to Netanyahu concerning the annexation of parts of the West Bank, including the Jordan Valley, and indeed persuaded Netanyahu not to do so.
Furthermore, Trump did not supply the Israelis with two weapons it will need to have in its arsenal if it is to be able to destroy Iran’s nuclear project. First, there is the 30,000 pound Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP), or giant bunker-buster, which Israel will need if it is to destroy the nuclear facilities at Natanz and at Fordow, both built deep underground. Second, Israel will need to have refueling tankers, if Israeli planes are to fly from Israel to Iran and back. Neither the bunker buster bombs, nor the refueling tankers, were supplied by Trump. The New York Times wants to paint a picture of a much too compliant President Trump, eager to satisfy Israel’s every request. It wasn’t that way. When it came to the greatest danger to Israel’s survival, Trump refused to transfer the wherewithal Israel will need if it is to successfully attack Iran’s nuclear project.
Most egregious of all, though, is the phrase “siding with Israel on its claims over Palestinian territory in the West Bank.” That makes it sound like the Times itself is taking sides in the territorial dispute, asserting that the land actually is “Palestinian territory.”
In describing the land in Judea and Samaria – which the Jordanians renamed as the “West Bank” in 1950 — as “Palestinian territory,” the New York Times presumes to treat the territorial dispute as settled. And it finds for the Palestinians. But the whole point about the territory of the West Bank is that it remains in dispute. Israel has a strong case that the Times simply refuses to mention. Israel can point to the Mandate for Palestine (1922), which was created by the League of Nations in order that a Jewish National Home, and ultimately a Jewish state, would be realized on all the land that the League assigned to that particular Mandate. What land was that? All the land from just beyond the Golan Heights in the north to the Red Sea in the south, and from the Jordan River in the east, to the Mediterranean in the west. In other words, all the land “from the river to the sea.” The New York Times chooses to forget about the Mandate for Palestine, and especially ignores Article 6, which required the holder of the Mandate – Great Britain – to “facilitate Jewish immigration” and “to encourage close settlement by Jews on the land.” The Times also chooses to forget UN Security Council Resolution 242 (unanimously passed on Nov. 22, 1967) which allows Israel to retain any territory it may need if it is to have “secure [i.e. defensible] and recognized boundaries.” That would include, for example, all of the Jordan Valley, control of which is so essential to prevent a successful invasion from the east that could cut Israel in two. The only certain thing one can say about the West Bank (Judea and Samaria) is that it remains in dispute.
The Israeli view is that the “West Bank” [a.k.a. Judea and Samaria] is Israeli territory. This is especially so because the land Israel was considering annexing wasn’t the entire West Bank, but only selected portions of it that were either strategically crucial or that were already heavily populated by Jewish residents. For the Times to describe those lands as “Palestinian territory” rather than as disputed territory is to adopt the Palestine Liberation Organization’s negotiating position as New York Times news department editorial policy. These are lands to which the Jewish people has extensive religious and historical connections, lands that were controlled most recently by the Ottoman and British empires, then by the Kingdom of Jordan, and then, after the Six Day War of 1967, by Israel.
Why didn’t the NY Times, in its analysis, simply do the proper thing and describe all of the West Bank as “disputed”? What impelled it to ignore the Israeli claim to the entire West Bank, one solidly based on the express provisions of the Mandate for Palestine? And what led the Times’ analysts, whoever they were, to ignore another , independent Israeli claim, based on UN Security Council Resolution 242, that gives Israel the right to retain those parts of the West Bank that it needs to adequately defend itself?
A newspaper editor I [Ira Stoll, author of the piece discussed here] knew once banned the term “news analysis,” mockingly suggesting that instead the rest of the newspaper’s columns be uniformly labeled as “analysis free.” At the Times, even the “news analysis” columns seem, sadly, to be bereft of the genuinely analytical and independent thinking necessary to distinguish reality from Palestinian propaganda. For turf more genuinely described as “Palestinian territory,” look not to the Jerusalem suburbs, but rather, to the columns and newsrooms of the New York Times itself.
Hold back, New York Times. Resist the temptation to present Palestinian land claims as having been accepted by everyone. Don’t deny that there is a continuing dispute between Jews and Arabs over the land “between the river and the sea,” and that Israel has an impressive case, based on both the Mandate for Palestine, and on UN Security Council Resolution 242, that cannot be easily dismissed. Try, Newspaper of Record, to be fair. It will be hard, for you, we know. But try.
Mark Spahn says
“the Palestinians’ liminal demand that almost all of the West Bank become Judenrein”
[1] What is a “liminal” demand? A dictionary says “limen” is a psychological term meaning “threshold”, but that does not explain what a liminal demand is. Could “liminal” be a misprint for “minimal”?
[2] “Judenrein” is a German adjective meaning “free of Jews, Jew-less”. Being an adjective, shouldn’t it be lowercase, “judenrein”?
Sherry C Miller says
@Mark Spahn – Liminal is an adjective and in this case means intermediate between two states, conditions, or regions, transitional or indeterminate. Judenrein is capitalized because the root is a religious term, just as if one were saying “Godlike.” Religious terms and names of peoples of nations are capitalized. One may question the capitalization of “palestinians” because there is no state or nation of Palestine.