Dear AP Editor,
From where we sit it is very clear that these peace talks are going to succeed. Not from a deep longing for peace from the PA leadership, but rather because they are left no option but to cooperate.
A NEW PEACE PROCESS
Obama ushered in a new era with his disclosure of a new US international policy at his landmark speech at Cairo University pointing out that the US under his leadership is NOT on a collision course with the Muslim world – or with anyone else for that matter. This way he simply interrupted a seemingly unstoppable descend towards global war, practically preventing a looming WW III, and his Nobel Prize for this was widely disputed but well deserved.
Then he proceeded to tighten the screws on Israel. His Israeli approval rate fall to one digit figures. But among other things, Obama is an academic, an intellectual, more than a philosopher or ideologist. He looked what happened and clearly saw that his tactic had backfired It had resulted in greater obstruction by the Palestinian leadership. Their complains had skyrocketed and their willingness to sit down and talk peace nose-dived.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the political landscape, Netanyahu made real nice and fundamental concessions and was very constructive throughout. (He was even willing to attack Iran for the good of the US, the rest of the ME and of all free People.) This all together must have convinced Obama that he was pressuring or arm-twisting the wrong party. So he changed course, and so far it’s going very well.
He put the heat on the PA leaders. “You either do as we tell you, sit down for peace till there are two States living side by side in peace, or we pull the plug on any money going to you,” he must have said. Their choice was simply between cooperation or going back to Tunis and spend the rest of their lives writing opinion pieces about how much their People has being wronged all along.
And why would this be interesting vis-à-vis AP reporting? Because it’s intriguing to see what AP does with all of this. And the answer is: it has consistently written the same outlook on this new situation. This shows more clearly than anything that AP doesn’t report – it attempts to educate its vision on the world to the public. In this case, it consequentially distributes the idea that these negotiations are fine and nice, and equally difficult on both parties, omitting completely: US coercion, the PA’s extremism and Israel’s deep wish for peace.
AP doesn’t report – it teaches its outlook on world events under the banner of journalism. It’s as demagogic and manipulative, ideological and partisan as can be. We, that insist on fair reporting about Israel, notice this first because AP never embraced Zionism. But the problem is not just with not being understanding of a Jewish Homeland. The issue is that AP tries to direct public opinion rather than inform. That is a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed. (Also now that – to our liking – AP happens to put its weight behind the US dictated peace process that will result in peace, DV.) AP needs to return to journalism and cover the news – not create it.
In the case of this peace process that would mean:
- Writing openly about the psychological problems for the Palestinian leaders to forgo their quest for the whole of the Holy Lands through violence and truly accept Israel.
- Making no secret of Obama’s change of heart and show how one person can make a difference, and giving credit where credit is due.
- Publicizing how much Jews in Israel long for peace and how much they have lost and sacrificed for living in security and without wars like any People.
- Informing the public the world over that common people in the Mideast all want peace and prosperity, that war- and hate-mongering is by fringe groups only.