JBlog Carnival Updates, HH, KCC & JPIX

Thursday, March 18, 2010

The New York Times Agenda, Against Israel

Before illustrating the organized and vicious campaign in the New York Times and by the Obama administration against Israel, I'm showing you a couple of pictures to illustrate the location of Ramat Shlomo.  It's in a Jerusalem forest, former no-man's land.





I photographed these yesterday when traveling the "Ramot Road" on my way to downtown Jerusalem.  I rolled down the car-window, but we couldn't stop.  Ramat Shlomo was built on empty land, between other Jerusalem neighborhoods, Ramat Eshkol, French Hill, Ramot and the Har Chotzvim Industrial Park.

New York Times op-ed columnist, Maureen Dowd admits that she's a spokesperson for the Arabs repeatedly  mentioning that Arab officials  spoke to her about Israel.
At least she's on the opinion page.
"Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi foreign minister, warned me..."
"Arab leaders groused to me..."


And about Obama and his advisers, I think they've gotten it all wrong.
“That’s not how you treat your best friend,” said one Obama official.
Reverse that, please.  You're neither acting nor speaking like a friend of Israel.  Israel ought to rethink its relationship to the United States.  Obama sure doesn't treat Israel like a friend.

Another of the New York Times op-ed columnists, Thomas Friedman, can't see the forest for the trees. His recent article details the disagreements, anarchy and unstable leadership among the Pseudostinian, aka Palestinian sic, leadership, but he doesn't take his observations a crucial step further.  It's obvious that none of these Arab leaders, even the most moderate and western, are capable of guaranteeing peace and stability for the Middle-east and security for Israel.  It just won't work.

The entire concept of "two states" is an unworkable mistake.  It's like expecting Santa Claus to cover your credit card bill for Xmas presents.  America can live in La-la Land, but I'm too pragmatic for that.  My life and further and the future existence of my country require that I think for myself and not trust any foreign leaders nor the media.  Dowd refers to a "defiant Israel." Let her call us whatever she wishes.  I don't care what she thinks.  Her antipathy is obvious.

We in Israel must make our own decisions about what's best for our secuity and our future.  Let the world butt out!

9 comments:

Sabba Hillel said...

"“That’s not how you treat your best friend,” said one Obama official."

Indeed, he is admitting that the United States is not treating Israel like a friend. Obama is just following his "pastor" of 20 years. (not so) "Reverend" Wright. THe State Department is just taking the opportunity to let their normal feelings loose.

Daniel said...

You should read "Buried by the Times "

Batya said...

Sabba H, the Americans expect worship and meant that we treated them badly.

Daniel, where?

Keli Ata said...

If I were an Israeli I would wear "Defiant Israel" as a badge of honor.

Israel has every right in the world to be defiant. Not only is the US butting into international issues but building neighborhoods in an Israeli captial is a municipal issue. Very local.

How dare the US get involved in municipal affairs in a foreign country.

Perhaps Bibi should tell Obama to give part of Manhattan to al Qaeda! Or push birth control in a public housing project among African Americans.

See how well that would play with the American public.

Boy, would you see American defiance.

I see this push to force Israel to stop building as extremely sinister--if Jews can't build they'd be forced to either live in ghettos or forced to limit the number of children in their families.

The latter harkens back to the ugly days in the US when Planned Parenthood was compelling poor immigrants and minorities to use birth control and undergo sterilization.

That's what we're really talking about. The US is trying to force birth control in Israel. It's all very sinister.

And Nazi-like.

Not to go too off topic and off the path here but there is a lot of controversy in the US right now about a billboard anti-abortion campaign by an African American religious group.

The billboard features a picture of a small black child and the words: "Black Children Are An Endangered Species."

My first thought was one of revulsion that they'd be referring to African Americans as a species. But that's the underlying attitude of Planned Parenthood, I think. They push birth control because it basically kills off certain groups of people.

And they probably DO view minorities as a species.


Likewise, forcing Israelis to either live in ghettos or limit the number of children they have is equally genocidal.

I just see similarities between the two.


Is it any wonder Americans are so up in arms over whether to include abortion in a public option health care plan?

Batya said...

Keli, it's outrageouis that Dowd expects Israel to obey Obama's dictates.

Daniel said...

Buried by the Times
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Buried by the Times is a book by Laurel Leff, an associate professor of journalism at Northeastern University. It is an account of the New York Times' coverage of Nazi atrocities against Jews that culminated in the Holocaust. The book makes the argument that the paper's publisher deliberately chose to "bury" such news in the back pages for ideological reasons.
According to the book, publisher Arthur Hays Sulzberger took the position that Jewishness is solely a matter of belief, that it does not and ought not to have any ethnic or national component, no ethnic peoplehood. He opposed the creation of a Jewish state. His political commitments were to the United States and to universalism. He did not want the Times to be or even appear to be too Jewish. According to Leff, Sulzberger went out of his way to ensure the Times would not portray Jews as the particular victims of Nazism, gave very little print to the news of genocide targeting Jews as it emerged from Europe and did not support the rescue of European Jews. [1] [2]
Leff's ongoing work on American responses to the Holocaust continues to draw attention. Her research paper Rebuffing Refugee Journalists: The Profession's Failure to Help Jews Persecuted by Nazi Germany asserting that journalists, unlike physicians and attorneys, failed to establish committees to help Jewish refugees secure positions that would have made them exempt from immigration limits and allowed them to come to the United States, inspired a campaign to get the Newspaper Association of America to acknowledge its predecessor organization in the 1930s "was wrong to turn its back on Jewish refugee journalists fleeing Hitler". [3] [4] The Newspaper Association of America responded by issuing a statement regretting that its predecessor organization did not give a full public airing to the issue at the time and by holding a special session on the topic at its annual meeting.[5]

Batya said...

Thanks, Daniel, My father has some WWII documentaries on DVD that stress that the Japanese front began years before but the Americans purposely ignored it all.

Anonymous said...

The 'two state solution' has always been unworkable. Something that was violently born and was created by un-natural means can only survive through violence and a colonial sponser. Without America has a sponser the whole zionist project in Palestine would collapse as the cost of defending the well armed ghetto ,called Israel, would be too much for the Jewish state to bear.

I like the touch about being built on 'empty land.' I suppose when you look at in terms of when a bulldozer has finished destroying all the Palestinian homes ,one could consider it to be 'empty lands'.

Batya said...

a, you haven't a clue; no surprise that you don't have the guts and integrity to sign your name.

Oh, and did you imply that there were Arabs living in the trees of the forest where Ramat Shlomo now is?

Look at the pictures, or does the truth bother you?