Is a NYT reporter lying or ignorant about Palestinian state?
Nov 1, 2024 20:21:40 GMT -5
Post by shalom on Nov 1, 2024 20:21:40 GMT -5
Is a New York Times reporter lying or ignorant about a Palestinian state?
Moshe Phillips
Opinion
November 1, 2024
antisemitism Israel opinon Oslo Accords Palestinians United States (America)
Moshe Phillips is National Chairman of Americans For A Safe Israel (www.afsi.org), a leading pro-Israel advocacy and education organization.
Steven Erlanger has been writing about Israel for the New York Times for nearly thirty years. How can it be that he still doesn’t know what the Oslo Accords say?
Even before he was hired by the Times, Erlanger was writing about the Middle East for the Boston Globe in the 1980s. In early 1996—a little over two years after the signing of Oslo I on the White House lawn—he became the Times’ chief diplomatic correspondent in Washington, and wrote plenty about America’s Middle East policy.
He even served as the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief from 2004 to 2008.
How, then, can one explain this egregiously erroneous statement in Erlanger’s October 21 news analysis in the Times: “The Oslo Accords of the 1990s were supposed to lead to an independent Palestine.”
And it’s not the first time he has made such a statement. In an article for the Times on November 24, 2023, Erlanger wrote: “Set up after the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority was intended as a temporary administration on the way toward an independent Palestinian state.”
Yet in reality, there is not one word in the Oslo Accords about a Palestinian state.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat. (Source: Wikipedia)
Oslo I —the agreement that was signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat on the White House Lawn in 1993—said in Article 1: “The aim of the Israeli Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council, (the “Council”) for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement”—nothing about a state.
Oslo II, signed in 1995, used the exact same language in its Preamble. Again, there was no reference to a state.
And that was deliberate. Because when Prime Minister Rabin presented Oslo II to the Knesset for ratification on October 5, 1995, he directly addressed the question of a Palestinian state. He said he favored “a Palestinian entity…which is less than a state.”
Rabin then emphasized that “We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines,” and outlined a number of areas that should be within Israel’s borders in a final settlement. He said Jerusalem, under Israeli rule, should include suburbs such as Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev. He said the eastern border should be in the Jordan Valley. And he said Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar “and other communities” should be part of Israel.
Rabin’s position put him at odds with the advocates of a Palestinian state. They demand that Israel return to the June 1967 lines. They demand that a Palestinian state include all of those communities that Rabin mentioned should be part of Israel. And they demand that the Old City section of Jerusalem, where the Temple Mount and the Western Wall are located, also should be part of “Palestine.”
View of the Israeli flag and the area known as E1, in the West Bank on January 2, 2017. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90
So of course the Oslo agreements could not refer to a Palestinian state. Rabin could not have asked the Knesset to ratify an accord giving up all the things he said he would not give up.
All of this leaves two possible explanations for Steven Erlanger’s false statements in the Times about Oslo and Palestinian statehood. Both explanations are deeply disturbing.
One is that Erlanger has never read the Oslo Accords. This would, of course, constitute an extremely serious case of professional misconduct. To fail to acquaint himself with the most basic documents concerning a subject that he was writing about, and then to make such an incredible error out of sheer ignorance, could be grounds for dismissal.
The second explanation is perhaps even worse. It would be that Erlanger knows exactly what the Oslo Accords say—but he consciously chooses to misrepresent it in order to advance the statehood agenda.
Of course, statehood advocates were hoping that Oslo would lead to a Palestinian state. And by pretending that Oslo required such an outcome, they make it appear as if Israel is in gross violation of its treaty obligations. So that would fit perfectly with the theme of so many New York Times articles—namely, the idea that Israel is to blame for the absence of Middle East peace and creating a Palestinian state will bring everlasting tranquility to the region.
Not surprisingly, most Israelis see it differently. Even before October 7, polls consistently showed that most Israelis feared a Palestinian state would be used as a springboard to attack Israel, especially at its most vulnerable nine-miles-wide points along the coast. After October 7, the idea of a Palestinian state seems to most Israelis to constitute a direct threat to Israel’s existence.
But those who remain committed to the goal of a Palestinian state—apparently including journalists such as Steven Erlanger—seem ready to do anything, including misrepresenting major international agreements, in order to advance their scheme no matter what.
link
Moshe Phillips
Opinion
November 1, 2024
antisemitism Israel opinon Oslo Accords Palestinians United States (America)
Moshe Phillips is National Chairman of Americans For A Safe Israel (www.afsi.org), a leading pro-Israel advocacy and education organization.
Steven Erlanger has been writing about Israel for the New York Times for nearly thirty years. How can it be that he still doesn’t know what the Oslo Accords say?
Even before he was hired by the Times, Erlanger was writing about the Middle East for the Boston Globe in the 1980s. In early 1996—a little over two years after the signing of Oslo I on the White House lawn—he became the Times’ chief diplomatic correspondent in Washington, and wrote plenty about America’s Middle East policy.
He even served as the Times’ Jerusalem bureau chief from 2004 to 2008.
How, then, can one explain this egregiously erroneous statement in Erlanger’s October 21 news analysis in the Times: “The Oslo Accords of the 1990s were supposed to lead to an independent Palestine.”
And it’s not the first time he has made such a statement. In an article for the Times on November 24, 2023, Erlanger wrote: “Set up after the 1993 Oslo Accords, the Palestinian Authority was intended as a temporary administration on the way toward an independent Palestinian state.”
Yet in reality, there is not one word in the Oslo Accords about a Palestinian state.
Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, U.S. president Bill Clinton, and PLO chairman Yasser Arafat. (Source: Wikipedia)
Oslo I —the agreement that was signed by Yitzhak Rabin and Yasir Arafat on the White House Lawn in 1993—said in Article 1: “The aim of the Israeli Palestinian negotiations within the current Middle East peace process is, among other things, to establish a Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority, the elected Council, (the “Council”) for the Palestinian people in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, for a transitional period not exceeding five years, leading to a permanent settlement”—nothing about a state.
Oslo II, signed in 1995, used the exact same language in its Preamble. Again, there was no reference to a state.
And that was deliberate. Because when Prime Minister Rabin presented Oslo II to the Knesset for ratification on October 5, 1995, he directly addressed the question of a Palestinian state. He said he favored “a Palestinian entity…which is less than a state.”
Rabin then emphasized that “We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines,” and outlined a number of areas that should be within Israel’s borders in a final settlement. He said Jerusalem, under Israeli rule, should include suburbs such as Ma’ale Adumim and Givat Ze’ev. He said the eastern border should be in the Jordan Valley. And he said Gush Etzion, Efrat, Beitar “and other communities” should be part of Israel.
Rabin’s position put him at odds with the advocates of a Palestinian state. They demand that Israel return to the June 1967 lines. They demand that a Palestinian state include all of those communities that Rabin mentioned should be part of Israel. And they demand that the Old City section of Jerusalem, where the Temple Mount and the Western Wall are located, also should be part of “Palestine.”
View of the Israeli flag and the area known as E1, in the West Bank on January 2, 2017. Photo by Yonatan Sindel/Flash90
So of course the Oslo agreements could not refer to a Palestinian state. Rabin could not have asked the Knesset to ratify an accord giving up all the things he said he would not give up.
All of this leaves two possible explanations for Steven Erlanger’s false statements in the Times about Oslo and Palestinian statehood. Both explanations are deeply disturbing.
One is that Erlanger has never read the Oslo Accords. This would, of course, constitute an extremely serious case of professional misconduct. To fail to acquaint himself with the most basic documents concerning a subject that he was writing about, and then to make such an incredible error out of sheer ignorance, could be grounds for dismissal.
The second explanation is perhaps even worse. It would be that Erlanger knows exactly what the Oslo Accords say—but he consciously chooses to misrepresent it in order to advance the statehood agenda.
Of course, statehood advocates were hoping that Oslo would lead to a Palestinian state. And by pretending that Oslo required such an outcome, they make it appear as if Israel is in gross violation of its treaty obligations. So that would fit perfectly with the theme of so many New York Times articles—namely, the idea that Israel is to blame for the absence of Middle East peace and creating a Palestinian state will bring everlasting tranquility to the region.
Not surprisingly, most Israelis see it differently. Even before October 7, polls consistently showed that most Israelis feared a Palestinian state would be used as a springboard to attack Israel, especially at its most vulnerable nine-miles-wide points along the coast. After October 7, the idea of a Palestinian state seems to most Israelis to constitute a direct threat to Israel’s existence.
But those who remain committed to the goal of a Palestinian state—apparently including journalists such as Steven Erlanger—seem ready to do anything, including misrepresenting major international agreements, in order to advance their scheme no matter what.
link
