Commonsense & Wonder

Edward I. Koch

One of Israel's Most Vicious Critics Is New York Times Columnist

Nicholas Kristof, As Revealed By His Column of October 6, 2011

I read the op ed of Nicholas D. Kristof in The New York

Times of October 6th with its headline caption, "Is Israel Its Own

Worst Enemy?" I concluded on finishing that article that it is

Nicholas Kristof who is truly an enemy of Israel.

As is fashionable nowadays, Kristof blames Israel for the

lack of progress in the peace process with the Palestinians, claiming,

"Nothing is more corrosive than Israel's growth of settlements." Why?

One million, five-hundred-thousand Muslims live in Israel. Why do

the Palestinian Authority and its supporters like Kristof believe that

the West Bank should be "Judenrein" or that Jews may not live in a

part of Jerusalem when they have lived in all parts of Jerusalem for

3,000 years until the Jordanians drove them out in 1948? Why, when a

two-state solution comes into being and borders are agreed upon and

Jews are located on the Palestinian side, shouldn't Jews have the

choice of remaining on as Palestinian citizens or resident aliens or

leaving?

Nothing offended me more and showed Kristof's true colors

and antagonism to Jews than his claim that the Obama administration

"humiliated itself" at the U.N. by making it clear that it will veto

any effort to create a Palestinian state outside of direct

negotiations between the parties. What is humiliating about insisting

that the Palestinians recognize the state of Israel and negotiate all

of their differences? Is Kristof implying that Obama is being pressed

into taking that stance against his will, or against the will of the

American people? Is he implying that the Jews forced him into taking

that position?

Kristof calls for the pre-1967 borders with land swaps.

Does he tell us how that is possible when Hamas (half of the

Palestinian Authority the Quartet, U.S., Russia and European Union

label as a terrorist organization) believes it is entitled to occupy

Tel Aviv and its charter states every Jew entering Palestine after

1917 must be expelled. Has Kristof ever criticized Hamas' charter and

its numerous acts of terrorism intended to accomplish this goal?

Kristof criticizes the fact that Israeli citizens have

become more conservative on "border[s] and land issues." Why

shouldn't they? Former Israeli Prime Ministers Ehud Barack and Ehud

Olmert offered to settle borders giving the Palestinian state 97

percent of the West Bank which they rejected. Many supporters of

Israel believe Palestinians are not interested in a two-state

solution, one Jewish and one Palestinian, but seek instead a return of

Palestinians to Israel so as to ultimately overwhelm the Jewish state

and make it a Muslim state. Has Kristof ever addressed that outcome? The criticism that Kristof lodges against Hamas is "And

Hamas not only represses its own people, but also managed to devastate

the peace movement in Israel. That's the saddest thing about the

Middle East: hardliners like Hamas empower hardliners like Mr.

Netanyahu." As Ronald Reagan once said, "There he goes again,"

equating terrorists with Israeli "hardliners." Surely, Kristof knows

the difference.

The Israelis have concluded, and I agree, the Palestinian

leadership does not want peace. Within the last two weeks, the

Quartet asked both parties to go back to the negotiation table and

negotiate without preconditions. The Israeli Prime Minister

immediately said "anywhere, anyplace." The President of the

Palestinian Authority said "no" unless Israel agrees to a settlement

freeze and negotiates based on indefensible 1967 borders. Has Kristof

criticized Mahmoud Abbas, President of the Palestinian Authority for

his refusal?

In his column, Kristof urges Palestinian women to engage in

civil disobedience which could, he knows, end in violence and be met,

he says, with "tear gas and clubbing," ending with "videos promptly

posted on YouTube." So there we have it. Kristof wants a physical

confrontation or have the state of Israel and its military lay down

their arms and submit to threats of violence rather than defend their

people. What an outrage. I have no doubt he is repelled by the

deaths of innocent civilians in Syria at the hands of the Syrian army,

but expresses no qualms at what would follow to the Jews of Israel

were the Arab armies or terrorists to enter a vanquished Israel.

Kristof attacks Israel for "burning bridges" with Turkey. I

believe it is Turkey that has effectively declared war on Israel.

Recently, Turkey expelled Israel's ambassador and Turkey's prime

minister Erdogan stated he will send Turkey's navy to break the

Israeli blockade of Gaza, a blockade a U.N. commission has just said

is legal under international law and intended to prevent the Hamas

government in Gaza from bringing even more rockets and other arms from

Iran into Gaza. So if the Israeli navy continues the blockade, and

the Turkish navy seeks to break it, and there is a naval clash,

clearly Kristof will blame Israel for protecting its people from

attack, the first obligation of any government.

Kristof closes with his usual disingenuous "mea culpa,"

saying, "Some of my Israeli friends will think I'm unfair and harsh,

applying double standards by focusing on Israeli shortcomings while

paying less attention to those of other countries in the region. Fair

enough. I plead guilty. I apply higher standards to a close American

ally like Israel that is a huge recipient of American aid."

Does he care that the Palestinian Authority now includes

Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization, and receives millions in

American aid? Does he care that Egypt which allowed the Israeli

embassy to be sacked gets $2 billion in American aid? I don't know

what Turkey gets, if anything. But I do know that NATO's expenses,

and Turkey is part of NATO, are paid by the U.S. to the extent of 75

percent.

Frankly, I have no hesitation in calling Kristof by his

rightful name: an enemy of Israel.