The NYT throws Dennis Ross under the bus
How would The New York Times react if Hamas lived in New Jersey and randomly sprayed the Upper West Side with rockets, sending their reporters’ kids scurrying into Montessori school shelters when the alarms went off?
Hard to say. The normal human reaction would be fury, but with these hypocritical, pseudo-peaceniks maybe they’d just withdraw to the Hamptons to negotiate, meanwhile looking internally for someone to blame for their enemy’s “temporarily” unreasonable behavior.
Today’s villain is longtime Middle East peace negotiator Dennis Ross (“Obama’s Peace Tack Contrasts With Key Aide, Friend of Israel”) who has been fingered as the culprit in the withdrawal of “wise” George Mitchell from the perpetual Arab-Israeli peace talks. Mitchell, according to the Times (sources vague, of course), wanted the administration to come forth with a more directive recommendation to the combatants instead of the muddled botch ultimately proffered in Obama’s speech.
Oh, well… All’s well that never ends well.
Back to the Times. Here’s a lovely example of their allegedly unbiased reporting:
By almost all accounts, Dennis B. Ross — Middle East envoy to three presidents, well-known architect of incremental and painstaking diplomacy in the Middle East that eschews game-changing plays — is Israel’s friend in the Obama White House and one of the most influential behind-the-scenes figures in town.
His strategy sometimes contrasts sharply with that of a president who has bold instincts and a willingness to elevate the plight of the Palestinians to a status equal to that of the Israelis.
“By almost all accounts”…. “bold instincts”… Iowahawk, take note. The New York Times now defies parody. They also include a photo of Ross and Netanyahu smiling together, in case you missed the point.
But if you are really dense, the Times sums it all up in the final three graphs (not for them, giving their opponents “the last word” a la O’Reilly):
“Mitchell wanted something broader and more forward-leaning, and Dennis seems to be taking a more traditional stance,” said David J. Rothkopf, a former Clinton administration official who has written about the National Security Council.
But, Mr. Rothkopf said, Mr. Obama must now take into account the emerging realities in the Arab world, including a new populism brought by the democratic movement that may make even governments that were not hostile to Israel, like Egypt and Jordan, more insistent on pushing the case of the Palestinians.
“Experience can be helpful, but it can also be an impediment to viewing things in a new way,” he said.
Poor Dennis Ross. Not only is he under the bus, he is now squashed.
But why now, one might ask? The disreputable Times has become a conduit for all sorts of reactionary-liberal views inside virtually all government agencies. What this should tells us is that Dennis Ross may have been better than we thought. The Times, in the end, has its uses.
The Times may not forgive Dennis Ross’ account of the Clinton negotiations with Arafat and Ehud Barak. Clinton pushed Barak so hard that he gave Arafat concessions that he might not have been able to deliver (Israel, after all, is a democracy) and still Arafat walked away. This should have ended the fiction that the Palestinians are ready to make peace with Israel if they are given enough concessions. The Times can never forgive Ross for that.
Ross gave Obama advise.
Obama didn’t take it.
That doesn’t translate to “Ross is under the bus.”
It translates to Obama is a real leader.
I think the real message here is not about Ross but: If Obama does not take Israel’s side in all things, unconditionally, with no consideration of U.S. national interests, that constitutes throwing Israel under the bus.
blackball, hope you are being sarcastic, cause obama doesn’t know how to lead anything. he is a puppet and is taking orders.
obama is a blank person with a blank head.
he needs to go, along with his commie ilk.
“…The Times, in the end, has its uses.”
Fits the bottom of the litter box perfectly (can’t quite come up with a catchy enough play on their slogan).
What the heck would I do if my lib wife didn’t subscribe?
The story put Ross under the bus in that it seriously undermined his capacity to act as a “neutral”. It essentially states that he is a puppet of the Israelis.
Well, it seems that any time a Jew has openly supported Israel he has been denounced for dual loyalties, while a Muslim can straight facedly announce that his only loyalty is to Islam and get a pass.
“If Obama does not take Israel’s side in all things, unconditionally, with no consideration of U.S. national interests, that constitutes throwing Israel under the bus.”
Hester, what in the name if Holy Jihad are you talking about? First of all, NO American president has EVER taken Israel’s interests with no consideration of our interests, so this is non-issue, unless you’re one of those nut jobs who think a Jewish cabal subverts U.S. interests in favor of Israel’s interests.
Second, of all the countries in the Middle East, which one do you think the U.S. has the most in common with? I’ll give you a hint: it’s not Syria. Or Iran. Or Saudi Arabia. Or any other 7th century cesspool where women are treated worse than dogs, and dogs are treated like whipping posts.
U.S. and Israeli interests are similar because both are civilized democracies in which an Arab or Jewish woman can get a PhD without putting her life at risk. We share a (semi) free economy, intelligence interests, and a commitment to civilization over savagery.
Finally, snarky comments about how our poor president can’t get a break because the JOOS and their minions won’t allow him his independence are pretty ridiculous considering this president’s obvious hostility to our only ally in the Middle East. Which I suppose is not surprising after his spending 20 years in a Jew-hating Church.
Don, you could not have stated this any better.