oints of view >> Send letters to: Ietters@thejewishnews.com Guest Column Editorial N.Y. Times Gets It Wrong Again W hen it was announced that Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu would address the United Nations General Assembly, one can easily imagine the New York Times editorial writers sharpening their pencils in anticipation. It could surely have been predicted that the paper would skewer the prime minister since the Times has had nary a good word for Israel in decades. And, as always, the Times did not disappoint, even though the paper was wrong on an almost identical issue — development of a nuclear weapon by a rogue nation — only a few years ear- lier. Here is the scenario of the Netanyahu- Times most recent entanglement: In his address to the U.N. General Assembly on Oct. 1, Netanyahu warned the world not to be fooled by Iran's President Hassan Rouhani's moderate talk. Stating that Rouhani's predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was a "wolf in wolf's cloth- ing?' Rouhani was a "wolf in sheep's cloth- ing:' (Incidentally, not one journalist from the West, in all their interviews, asked Rouhani if he shared his predecessor's goal to wipe Israel off the map.) Opposing the easing of sanctions on Iran, Netanyahu, indeed, called for increas- ing sanctions until there was indisputable evidence that Iran had dismantled its capa- bilities to build a nuclear bomb. The next day, the Times wrote that "Mr. Netanyahu has legitimate reasons to be wary of any Iranian overtures, as do the United States and the four other major powers involved in negotiations over Iran's nuclear program?' So far so good but, of course, the Times did not leave it there. It had to take Netanyahu to task. Stating that Netanyahu seems "eager for a fight," the paper wrote, "... it could be disastrous if Mr. Netanyahu and his sup- porters in Congress were so blinded by distrust of Iran that they exaggerate the threat, block President Obama from tak- ing advantage of new diplomatic openings and sabotage the best chance to establish a new relationship since the 1979 Iranian Revolution sent American-Iranian relations into a deep freeze?' On the face of it, one might not want to quarrel with the Times except for its historic animus against Israel and, most 30 October 24 • 2013 JIN Palestinians Must Say Israel Is Jewish State important, for what it wrote in 2005 when the world worried about North Korea's nuclear program. Here is what the paper said at the time: "For years now, foreign policy insid- ers have pointed to North Korea as the ultimate nightmare, a closed, hostile and paranoid dictatorship with an aggressive nuclear weapons pro- gram. Very few could envision a successful outcome, and yet North Korea agreed in principle this week to dismantle its nuclear weapons program ... abide by the treaty's safeguards and admit international inspectors. Diplomacy, it seems does work after all:' What happened? North Korea exploded its first nuclear weapons device a year later. It seems the Times was blinded by trust. But being wrong only a few years ago about North Korea did not stop the Times from taking its expected shot at Israel. In the editorial, the paper also took issue with Netanyahu's policy of reserving the right to strike Iran if it was close to producing a nuclear weapon. "Against such a threat, Israel will have no choice but to defend itself," Netanyahu said. What world leader would not take that very same position against an enemy who has vowed unequivocally that is was com- mitted to destroying his country? Most interesting, it was Netanyahu who quoted the Times on North Korea in his U.N. speech, the day before the editorial was published. Did he cite it in hopes of stemming expected criticism in the mistaken belief that the Times' editorial writers might give Israel a pass, recognizing they had been wrong on the issue? Or was it just coinci- dence? The latter is more likely because Netanyahu surely understands that he and Israel will never get the benefit of the doubt from the Times. What's more, editorial writers are not known for admitting mistakes; one of the perks enjoyed by editorial writers is self- appointed infallibility. Paraphrasing the song, writing editorials means never hav- ing to say you're sorry. This is especially true at the Times when the issues involve Israel. ❑ A rabs and Druze also live in Israel. But let there be no doubt: Israel has been a Jewish state from its 1948 founding. Against this backdrop, Israel has every right to ask its sometime negotiating partner, the Palestinian Authority, to recognize the Jewish state as the nation state of the Jewish people – not just recognize the Israeli people. The P.A. also must drop its destructive demand for a right of return of all Palestinian refugees and their descendants since 1948 – a number that totals 500,000 to 1 million, depending on the source. Palestinian Arabs can seek immigration to Israel just as others can. But they don't merit a free pass – a situation that would instantly threaten Israel's Jewish majority. Netanyahu described "nation state" rec- ognition as "an essential condition." In real- ity, it shouldn't be considered a condition of negotiating, but rather a central starting point. It's hard to imagine a successful con- clusion to the seemingly hollow peace talks, suddenly back on in earnest thanks to a July deal brokered by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, without such a baseline. Benjamin Israel certainly recognizes the P.A. as Netanyahu the sole representative of the Palestinian people. It also is prepared to recognize Palestine as the nation state of the Palestinians upon a mutually agreed-to pact. Israel already acknowledges Palestinian control over much of the West Bank and all of the Gaza Strip. Addressing the Palestinian leadership in Ramallah, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said in an Oct. 6 speech at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan: "We are willing to rec- ognize your nation state, and that is at great cost. It involves territories, our ancestral lands, which is not insignificant." Netanyahu declared that peace would never arise without such Palestinian recognition. "Recognize our right to live here in our own sovereign state, our nation state – only then will peace be possible," he said. He's right. Even if Israeli-Palestinian talks somehow managed to find common ground on a host of critical, final-status issues such as security, borders, settlements, refugees, Jerusalem, water rights and holy places, none of that would seem to matter if the Palestinians couldn't bring themselves to forgo the idea of a bi-national state flooded by Palestinian refugees. The reason the Palestinians seem hell-bent against this acknowledgment lies in their leadership's revisionist histori- cal view among the hardcore. This view dates back at least as far as the Nazi-sympathizing Mufti, the Palestinian leader during the 1930s and 1940s. It basically holds that the Palestinians, not the Jews, hold a historical right to Eretz Yisrael, the biblical Land of Israel, which includes modern Israel and all of the West Bank (Judea/Samaria). Capturing the need for P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas to speak up quickly and loudly, Netanyahu said: "In order for the current process to be significant, in order for it to have a real chance for success, it is essential that we finally hear from the Palestinian leadership that it recognizes the right of the Jewish people to their own country, on the land of their ancestors, in the State of Israel." ❑ A veteran West Bloomfield journalist and author, Bed Falbaum teaches news writing and media ethics at Wayne State University, Detroit.