New York Times Downplays Crucial Arab Support Of Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan


In a totally predictable ploy aimed at salvaging the remnants of the Obama foreign policy legacy, the New York Times published a report on Tuesday titled “A Muted Arab Response to Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan.” The caption read, “The U.S. is banking on Arab leaders to help make its plan for ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict work. It is not clear how realistic that is.”

The feigned skepticism is a masterful stroke the media often employs in order to project disaster upon a given foreign policy maneuver with little to no evidence. It’s what the national security media did vis-à-vis Iran, the Embassy move to Jerusalem, and now, Trump’s peace plan meant to bring to an end the decades-long conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. They are never right, and we should stop listening to them. But just how wrong are they? The Jerusalem Post offered a handy list of those who have echoed support of the new plan.

Let’s start with the Saudis. “In light of the announcement, the Kingdom reiterates its support for all efforts aimed at reaching a just and comprehensive resolution to the Palestinian cause,” the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia wrote on Twitter. As the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia Mohammad Bin Salman told Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, “The establishment of a just and comprehensive peace must be worked for.”

The Egyptians toed a similar line, emphasizing the importance of reaching a peaceful resolution for the sake of regional stability. MORE

7 Comments on New York Times Downplays Crucial Arab Support Of Trump’s Mideast Peace Plan

  1. There will be no lasting peace in the ME.

    Eventually we -collective humanity- will establish one that looks like it achieves it but it will last only a few years before it breaks down and the world is sucked into a nightmare that will end in the most widespread misery and conflict the world has ever seen with pervasive ethnic and international warfare becoming the norm.

    Then things will start getting bad.

  2. “A Muted Response”…well then, get your fat, greasy finger off the Mute Button, Enemedia. Your Boyfriend Iran is not coming back.

  3. Even if it meant peace in the middle east it comes secondary to the destruction of the president.
    How do these assholes rationalize that? {rhetorical question}

  4. I’ve been hearing about the “Mid-East Peace Process™”
    since 1973. That’s forty seven years and nothing changes.

    What’s that definition of insanity again?

  5. The progressive movement and Islamists (Islamists emphasize the implementation of sharia; pan-Islamic political unity, including an Islamic state; or selective removal of non-Muslim, particularly Western military, economic, political, social, or cultural influences in the Muslim world that they believe to be incompatible with Islam) have been allies against the west since prior to the point that Hitler formalized their commonality through a pact with the Grand Mufti.

    Both are motivated by vitriolic hatred for Christianity and for western culture. I have heard it posited that progressives and Islamists are not ideological allies, but allies of convenience who share a common enemy. I can go along with their sharing of a common enemy, but their ideology overlaps more than a lot of people are willing to recognize. You can begin with their basic hatred for humanity as a starting point.

  6. @ Lowell JANUARY 30, 2020 AT 11:34 AM

    This is the first President in 47 years that has put the interests of the American people above those of his friends, family and close business associates.


Comments are closed.