Look who’s ethnic cleansing now

In this world of gotcha journalism and lighting-quick social media, it can sometimes be difficult for politicians, pundits and other public figures to figure out where the line lies between acceptable hyperbole and “whoa, slow down there little Stalin.”

For instance, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte learned last week that calling US President Barack Obama a son of a whore was problematic, and US presidential dark horse Gary Johnson found out that asking what Aleppo is might not be a good idea.

Adding himself to that august pantheon, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made the mistake over the weekend of accusing Palestinians and those who support them of pursuing a policy of “ethnic cleansing” of Jews in the West Bank, and quickly found out how big of a boo-boo that was.

As if the State Department and domestic condemnation were not enough, the press piles on with criticism of Netanyahu Sunday morning, though he gets some backing from his friends in the fourth estate.

That group does not include Haaretz, which focuses not on the video but on the condemnation it drew, especially for the US. Hopping on the bandwagon, columnist Chemi Shalev accuses Netanyahu of “chutzpah.”

“It’s one thing to now claim sovereignty over settlement blocs because facts on the ground have created a new status quo, but to then describe Palestinian demands to remove all settlers as ‘ethnic cleansing’ breaks new records of self-victimization, chutzpah and lack of self-awareness. After years that Israel has toiled to prevent the loaded term ‘ethnic cleansing’ from entering the Israeli-Palestinian lexicon, Netanyahu is now pushing it in himself, through the front door,” he writes.

Doing double duty writing the news and analysis, the paper’s Barak Ravid notes that Netanyahu’s video diatribe seemed to be word-for-word from the mouth of GOP strategist Frank Luntz, who penned a document for The Israel Project that includes a text on ethnic cleansing that closely matches Netanyahu’s statement. (Netanyahu’s spokesperson points out to The Times of Israel that the prime minister was making the claim way before Luntz.)

Netanyahu isn’t the only supposedly Israeli copying an American text, as Ravid is apparently guilty of the same sin, putting Foggy Bottom’s complaints over Netanyahu’s recent behavior on the record with the added convenience of not actually sourcing anything to a name.

“Senior administration officials don’t understand why now, of all times, Netanyahu is coming out with such a media campaign in defense of the settlements,” he writes. “Why, they wonder, is he taking a gamble on an issue on which there is international consensus against Israel and that, one way or another, could land in the UN Security Council in November, right after the US presidential election? Netanyahu should have avoided such a thing as much as possible, but his conduct is actually inviting a Security Council resolution.”

In Yedioth, Nahum Barnea offers an answer: Netanyahu is picking a fight with the world to distract from domestic legal troubles hounding him at home, he surmises, taking a page out of the 1997 satirical film “Wag the Dog.”

“It’s not necessary to shout that ‘the emperor has no clothes.’ Netanyahu is not an idiot. He knows that the speech shows him in all his nakedness. But the times are not simple, and sometimes you need to do extreme things. Any headline — just not the ones on the never-ending police investigation, on the indictment in the houses affair, on the flights and gifts and bribes,” he writes.

But Yedioth, normally not seen as especially friendly toward Netanyahu, also includes a defense of the prime minister, or at least the ideas he espouses in the video, from columnist Yifat Ehrlich, herself a settler in line to be ethnically cleansed.

“It’s been a while since Bibi has gotten me excited. Not Bibi the hesitater, the scared, the brown-noser, but the Bibi who shoots the truth, and gets into hearts and minds,” she writes, using Netanyahu’s nickname.

“Support for two states is support for ethnic cleansing. The vision of two states for two peoples, which Obama so much wants to push forward, includes creating a ‘judenrein’ area. That’s what you call a territory where Jews are not allowed to set foot.”

Less of a surprise is the defense of Netanyahu in Israel Hayom, which buries the story way inside on page 9 (which is the closest indication anywhere that Netanyahu realizes he may have screwed up and doesn’t want to highlight his claims.)

Dispensing with any actual analysis in favor of recycling the same old diatribes, columnist Haim Shine writes that the Jews came to a land without a people and settled the West Bank to take what was theirs and defend themselves, giving a preview of how Jerusalem may dig in its heels should peace talks ever actually occur.

“Now, as there are efforts to restart the peace process, it’s good that the prime minister clarified that we returned to Israel to stay. Whoever predicates a peace arrangement on removing Jews from Judea and Samaria promises that afterward will come the demand to remove all Jews from little Israel,” he writes. “Obama, in the twilight of his failed term, is using unreliable information that doesn’t represent the true feelings of most Israelis. Jews are not willing to give up on their will to live for the good of their neighbors’ death cult.”

Shine’s attack on Obama is really just the cherry on top of an edition that devotes its front pages to excoriating the US administration for its decision to strike a deal on Syria with Russia, including apparently dropping the demand that President Bashar Assad give up power.

If the headline “US gives up on demand to oust Assad,” weren’t enough, foreign editor Boaz Bismuth calls the deal a big fat gift from Obama to the Syrian dictator.

“Remember August 2013, when there were still red lines and it was thought Obama would take out Assad? Well, Assad is still with us and along with him the Shiite corridor across our northern border,” he writes. “Fate has given Assad a birthday that fits his character, his actions and his personality – September 11. But why did Obama choose to give him the gift of leaving us and the Syrian people with him?”

In Haaretz, it’s Bashir, not Bashar that’s the criminal in its sights, and Netanyahu, and not Obama, accused of feting him. Days after writing that Israel was going to bat for Sudan, the paper’s lead editorial counsels against such a move, warning that Omar Bashir’s crimes are even worse than those of other repressive regimes.

“The Israeli government must not ignore the inhumane acts carried out by Bashir and on his behalf due to his decision to cut ties with Iran. Based on that criterion, Israel should have cut ties with Turkey, Russia, Britain and the other countries that maintain relations with Tehran,” the paper writes. “Even more seriously, Israel as the advocate of a merciless, brutal regime further undermines its standing as a moral country and a strategic asset compared with other countries in the region. A strategic ‘friendship’ with Sudan is not only a moral error. It would also probably trigger animosity with the enlightened world.”