In its March 26, 2010 editorial: “Mr. Obama and Israel,” the New York Times advocated the administration’s take on the Middle East without scant hesitation. In my opinion, President Obama’s strategy and tactics endanger Israel. The Times editorial is especially destructive because many NYT readers rely on the paper for their information, and consequent opinion, on the complicated Middle East. Along with my criticism of Obama’s demands and their reiteration by the Times, I’ve included excerpts from other American media sources poking holes in the administration’s strategy on Israel.

NYT Editorial: “But after a cabinet meeting on Friday, Mr. Netanyahu and his right-wing government still insisted that they would not change their policy of building homes in the city, including East Jerusalem, which Palestinians hope to make the capital of an independent state. President Obama made pursuing a peace deal a priority and has been understandably furious at Israel’s response. He correctly sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a factor in wider regional instability.”

Comments: Simply because the Palestinians hope to make Jerusalem their capital is no reason for Israel to stop construction in its capital city, where it’s been building for 3,000 years. Yes, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a factor in wider regional instability, but the much bigger factor is simply Israel’s existence. The Arabs will continue to agitate against the Jewish state regardless of the construction policy in the city. Elliot Abrams, Weekly Standard, March 27: “The Islamists are not interested in ‘1967 issues’ related to Israel’s size, but in ‘1948 issues’ related to Israel’s existence. If henceforth we mean to engage such people rather than to defeat them, Israel’s existence - not its settlement policy - comes into play.”

Editorial: “Palestinians are justifiably worried that these [construction] projects nibble away at the land available for their future state. The disputes [initiated by President Obama] with Israel have made Mr. Obama look weak and have given Palestinians and Arab leaders an excuse to walk away from the proximity talks (in which Mr. Obama’s Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, would shuttle between Jerusalem and Ramallah) that Washington nurtured.”

Comments: Netanyahu’s 10- month freeze on building beyond the Green Line (1949 armistice line), excluding Jerusalem, was accepted by the administration. Secretary of State Clinton announced (November 2, 2009): “What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements ... is unprecedented [in a positive way].” Clinton made it clear that she wasn’t pleased with Israeli settlement construction but that it was no reason to hold up talks. “There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized, “ she said. In January, 2010, Charlie Rose interviewed George Mitchell, who said, “The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in, or construction in East Jerusalem. They don’t regard that as a settlement because they think it’s part of Israel. . . It’s what they regard as their country. They don’t say they’re letting us go ahead when we build in Manhattan.”

Editorial: “We hope Israel is being pressed to at least temporarily halt building in East Jerusalem as a sign of good faith. Jerusalem’s future must be decided in negotiations.”

Comments: Israel is being pressed to meet demands that the Palestinians didn’t insist on until President Obama pressed the issue. It is the administration that has prevented negotiations by being more “Palestinian” than the Palestinians. Israel has been asked to make numerous concessions to signal its good faith, while the Palestinians are not required to make any concessions. (Let’s not forget the responses Israel received for past concessions, such as the retreat from Gaza, where Hamas now rules a terrorist regime intent on taking over both the West Bank and Israel.) Wesley Pruden, Washington Times (March 26): “Democrats were once regarded as the best friends Israel had - Harry S. Truman, a Democratic president and a Southern Baptist, was the first head of state to recognize Israel - but now it’s the Republicans who are steadfast in support of the Jewish state. Says Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana, chairman of the House Republican Conference: ‘I never thought I’d live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the Jewish state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem.’“

Editorial: “Many Israelis find Mr. Obama’s willingness to challenge Israel unsettling. We find it refreshing that he has forced public debate on issues that must be debated publicly for a peace deal to happen. He must also press Palestinians and Arab leaders just as forcefully.”

Comments: Finally, something I don’t disagree with! But where is the pressure on the Arabs? The demonization of Israel by the Palestinian Authority is a daily occurrence, as are abuses such as the naming of schools and plazas for prominent terrorists, for starters. Jim Kouri, Examiner.com March 28): “What is particularly telling is that this is a president who has bowed to a Saudi king, who has repeatedly held his hand out to Iran only to have his face slapped in response and who has regularly suffered the slings and arrows of insults from Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, to name a few. For whom does he reserve his anger, toughness and vehemence? For Israel, the only reliable ally we have in the Middle East.”

Making the rounds in Israel is a spoof of a news release: “Passover Hagaddah conclusion, ‘Next Year in Jerusalem’ deemed ‘unhelpful’ by Obama administration.” The fact that this wasn’t instantly recognized as satire is telling. Also making the rounds here is A Letter to the World from Jerusalem, 1969, by Eliezer ben Yisrael (Stanley Goldfoot): “Your hearts bled when Berlin came under siege. You rushed your airlift ‘to save the gallant Berliners.’ But you did not send one ounce of food when Jews starved in besieged Jerusalem [During the War of Independence]. You thundered against the wall which the East Germans ran through the middle of the German capital - but not one peep out of you about that other wall, the one that tore through the heart of Jerusalem [Jordanian occupation of east Jerusalem, 1948-1967]. And when that same thing happened 20 years later, and the Arabs unleashed a savage, unprovoked bombardment of the Holy City again, did any of you do anything? [Six Day War] The only time you came to life was when the city was at last reunited [by the Israelis]. Then you wrung your hands and spoke loftily of ‘justice’ and need for the ‘Christian’ quality of turning the other cheek.”

Goldfoot concluded that gentiles preferred that Jerusalem be destroyed rather than be governed by Jews. I’m not sure he is incorrect, based on the West’s indifference to valid Jewish rights to Jerusalem and Israel. If Jerusalem is destroyed, there’s a good chance that Western civilization could also fall.

This quote from Amerisrael.typepad.com (March 26) tells it like it is: “Just as appeasement policies in the late 1930s resulted in Europe being overrun and occupied by the Nazis, so the current policies of the Obama administration pressuring Israel to engage in appeasement has the effect of emboldening not only Israel’s enemies, but the enemies of the free-world as well. It’s the 1930s all over again. This time Israel is ‘England’ with rockets raining down upon them, while an ‘appeasement minded’ world looks on.” The Obama administration surely doesn’t want the Islamists to triumph, which is his rationale for

Stephen Kramer resided and worked in the Atlantic City area until 1991, when he moved to Israel with his wife, Michal Langweiler, and two sons. He can be reached at Sjk1@jhu.edu. American troops fighting in Afghanistan. It’s time for Americans to inform the administration that Israel is on America’s side and that emasculating Israel gives the Islamists exactly the wrong impression, and “permission” to continue the current atrocities.