The New York Times editors continue to instruct the world what steps should be taken in all areas of endeavor. This time it is the Middle East Peace Process. The lead editorial today tries to do an end run around the Road Map endorsed by the US, the UN, Russia, and the EU by simply ignoring its existence, while promoting the Geneva Accord as the solution "everyone knows" should be the end result.

While the Road Map itself may be flawed in several respects by seeming to give wiggle room for the Palestinians regarding the steps they need to take before Israel reciprocates, the Geneva Accord is filled with loopholes (prominent among them the so—called "right of return") and is Munich—like in character, appeasing the worst outrages. The Geneva Accord would be a capitulation to terror and place the lives of all the Israelis at risk. The Geneva Accord itself was an end—run drafted by grandstanding dissident politicians within Israel and was not accepted by the vast majority of Israelis. The views of the people of Israel, whose fate would be imperiled by such an agreement is of little concern to the latte—sipping skyscraper—inhabiting elitists at the Times, who pride themselves on their omniscience.
 
Should we be surprised that the Times has arrogated to itself the responsibility of determining the foreign policy America of and the fate of another nation? This dictate follows by 3 years the other "peace plan" drafted by the Saudis to deflect attention from their role in 9/11 and the spread of terror. That final solution was also brought to the world by the Arab League's Ambassador to America, Times columnist Tom Friedman, and endlessly pushed by the grandees at the New York Times editorial board.

Ed Lasky   1 11 05