« ACLU defends Boulder's 'nude pumpkin run' as constitutional right | Even with Dede withdrawal, race is still tight »
PrintNovember 1, 2009
NYT op-ed by 'expert' bought and paid for by overseas Arab money
The New York Times neglects to inform its readers that an op-ed writer slamming Israel earns a handsome living courtesy of overseas Arab money.
Henry Siegman is a self-styled Middle East expert who has a simplistic view of the Middle East: Israel is always at fault. He has called Israel an apartheid state -- but that is only the tip of the iceberg. In Monday's New York Times he characterizes Israelis as being pathological and filled with hostility toward Barack Obama because he wants to bring peace between Israel and the Arab world.
Polls show that only 4% of Jewish Israelis consider Barack Obama a friend of Israel, and over 50 percent consider him a friend of the Palestinians. Siegman writes that Obama's friendship and commitment are real and places the blame for the problems on Israel. His op-ed is filled with inaccuracies; propaganda masquerading as facts.
Siegman's claim that international law and "U.N. resolutions call for a return to the 1967 pre-conflict borders" is wrong. Resolution 242 calls for the "Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict". The Security Council did not say that Israel must withdrawal from "all the territories" occupied after the Six-Day war. That was deliberate wording and the omission is significant.
The Soviet delegate wanted the inclusion of those words and said that their exclusion meant "that part of these territories can remain in Israeli hands." The Arab states pushed for the word "all" to be included, but this was rejected. They nevertheless asserted that they would read the resolution as if it included the word "all." The British Ambassador who drafted the approved resolution, Lord Caradon, declared after the vote: "It is only the resolution that will bind us, and we regard its wording as clear."This literal interpretation was repeatedly declared to be the correct one by those involved in drafting the resolution. On October 29, 1969, for example, the British Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons the withdrawal envisaged by the resolution would not be from "all the territories." When asked to explain the British position later, Lord Caradon said: "It would have been wrong to demand that Israel return to its positions of June 4, 1967, because those positions were undesirable and artificial."Similarly, Amb. Goldberg explained: "The notable omissions-which were not accidental-in regard to withdrawal are the words 'the' or 'all' and 'the June 5, 1967 lines'....the resolution speaks of withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal."The principal condition is that Israel withdraw from "territories occupied" in 1967, which means that Israel must withdraw from some, all, or none of the territories still occupied. Since Israel withdrew from 91% of the territories when it gave up the Sinai, it has already partially, if not wholly, fulfilled its obligation under 242.
Blaming the Jews (Israel) for hostility toward Obama is unfair and absurd. He enjoyed high approval ratings in Israel, as he did in America, at the start of his term. But a steady flow of offensive rhetoric towards Israel, the attempt to break previous agreements regarding settlements and defensible borders, the overweening praise for Israel's adversaries, the placatory attitude and apathy toward Iran, the insulting call for Israel to be more self-reflective, the fictionalizing of the history of peace-making that he engaged in when he called for more daylight between Israel and America -- all have understandably led Israelis to conclude that Barack Obama is not sympathetic to their plight. Has Benjamin Netanyahu, insulted Barack Obama or the United States as Barack Obama has insulted Israel? Where is the "hostility" that Siegman claims Israelis harbor toward Obama. Not considering him a friend is not hostility.
What motivates Siegman? How about money?
The New York Sun examined Siegman a few years ago and noted that he is the senior fellow and director, U.S./Middle East Project at the Council of Foreign relations. They noted that all his writings are indistinguishable from Arab propaganda and then looked at who were his benefactors.
[W]hy would the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York-based American institution, fund this "expert" at the level of $204,151 in salary and benefits, making him, in the most recent year for which tax returns are available, its fourth-highest paid employee? It turns out that much of the funding for the Council's "U.S./Middle East Project" comes from overseas, including the European Commission, the government of Norway, Kuwaiti and Saudi businessmen, a Lebanese politician, and, for one year, an official of the commercial arm of the Palestinian Authority, Munib Masri.
Siegman's writing of an earlier anti-Israel column in the International Herald Tribune prompted the examination by the Sun into his compensation. The Sun queried the editor of the Herald Tribune about Siegman and the source of his pay. The editor (Serge Schmemann) says the paper never asked about, and Siegman, never mentioned where his money was coming from. Bu the Sun informed them that he was basically a paid PR agent and promoter of propganada.
Why is this relevant? Because the Herald Tribune is owned by the New York Times. Did anyone at the Times already know about Siegman's history? Or care?
One more point. Siegman is also a member of J Street, the new anti-Israel lobby posing as a pro-Israel lobby that the newspaper of record has been trying to promote as being moderate and supportive of Israel. The paper neglected to mention this association. J Street is also connected to George Soros, who has a long record of hostility towards Israel. J Street's leadership has admitted that it wants to serve as Obama's blocking back with the Jewish community in America (i.e., to further Obama's agenda).
Seems like the "paper of record" shares those goals. Similar to Siegman's op-ed, it is biased propaganda masquerading as something else.
