http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/israel_evacuates_a_settlement_but_gets_whacked_by_ny_times_anyway.html
ISRAEL DESERVED A WHACKING FOR THE COURT RULING THAT EVACUATED JEWS FROM THEIR HOME, BUT THE POINT IS THAT ISRAEL WILL GET BASHED AFTER EVERY CONCESSION AND ONLY A DISPLAY OF STRENGTH SUCH AS ENTEBBE, OSYRAK, STUXNET, THE SYRIAN STARTUP REACTOR AND THE 1967 WAR ELICITS RESPECT…..AND RENNERT’S CLINGING TO THE RIDICULOUS NOTION THAT THERE CAN BE A TWO STATE SOLUTION IS SIMPLY MORE POSTURING…..WHEN WILL THEY LEARN AND WHEN WILL RENNERT, A GOOD JOURNALIST AND SUPPORTER OF ISRAEL LEARN?…..RSK
Israel evacuates a settlement, but gets whacked by NY Times anyway
This week saw a generally peaceful evacuation of 30 Jewish settlers from a Beit El neighborhood in the West Bank — a move ordered by Israel’s Supreme Court which found that five buildings were on Palestinian land. For the affected settlers, it was a wrenching experience, but with urgings from their rabbi to comply peacefully, they packed up and moved to new housing elsewhere in Beit El.
One would think that such compliance with a lawful court order on a highly politically sensitive issue might be depicted as Israel going the extra mile to advance the peace process — but not by the New York Times. In fact, in its June 27 edition, the Times runs a purported news article by Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren that manages to use this event to indict Israel as driving another nail in the coffin of a two-state solution. (“Settlers Begin Mandatory Evacuation of a West Bank Outpost” page A10).
In Rudoren’s view, Israel — and only Israel — stands in the way of a peace deal with the Palestinians. Mahmoud Abbas is automatically forgiven for refusing to resume negotiations.
Rudoren’s real thrust is to focus on a compromise with the settlers forged by Prime Minister Netanyahu — in exchange for removal of this Beit El neighborhood, Israel will build another 300 homes in parts of Beit El that don’t sit on Palestinian land. But why should this be an impediment to achieving a two-state solution since Israel intends to keep Beit El in any two-state peace deal anyway? Plenty of room would be left on the West Bank for a viable, contiguous Palestinian state.
With an assist from some “experts” dug up by Rudoren, the Times draws its own conclusion that, to achieve peace, Israel must cede all of Beit El to a Palestinian state. Never mind what Israel might demand if peace talks ever resume. Never mind exactly what borders would be drawn for a Palestinian state. Rudoren and the Times, with all their imperious chutzpah, already have determined that Beit El, a town of 7,000 residents north of Jerusalem, must and will end up on the Palestinian side.