This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Timelines and outcomes weren't specified. Israeli officials obstruct and delay. Concessions aren't made. They never will be.
Official policy reflects occupation harshness and land theft. It's hard-wired and unchanged. Negotiations accomplish nothing. Times reports don't explain.
Perhaps as an afterthought, its editorial admitted that Netanyahu refuses serious compromise. Uniting with Avigdor Lieberman suggests "even more hard-line" policies ahead.
The Times shamelessly endorsed Obama. It did so for the wrong reasons. It ignored nearly four years of unprincipled leadership. It said, "Whatever chance exists of a new American peace initiative after the election is likely to vanish if Mitt Romney wins."
Implied is that Obama's reelection holds the best chance for Israel/Palestinian conflict resolution. Ignored is why no progress occurred during his first term.
He rejects Palestinian self-determination. He won't accept full or partial UN membership. He's one-sidedly pro-Israel. Rhetoric alone separates him from Romney. Both represent rogue governance.
The Times also rejects Palestinian statehood. It does so by ignoring what's existed for 24 years. Dismissiveness defines longstanding editorial policy. Palestinians have no friend in Times Square.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at Email address removed .
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
