thats all.

Here goes the NYT again, pretending that Abbas is the "partner for peace". And, of course, there would be peace if only Israel would impose a "settlement freeze". Yet the NYT simply ignores the fact that Bibi previously imposed a freeze and Abbas refused to negotiate. Fatah is no more weaker than it was last week. How much weaker does the NYT think Fatah can become before it becomes irrelevant? The problem is not Bibi, but rather western do-gooders like the NYT author who continue to prop up the impotent Fatah, which sucks up American, European and Japanese taxpayers money and gives back.....what? "Stability"?!? The only stability Fatah is giving is keeping a lid on violence and squashing Hamas in the west bank. Fatah has failed to deliver a democratic Palestinian entity to counter the Iranian funded Hamas welfare state. The Palestinians continue to build a society based on "struggle" and "occupation"....yet the vast majority of Palestinians actually live under Fatah or Hamas rule, not Israeli military "occupation". The "occupation" is the easy whipping boy for Palestinian incompetence and corruption, so that the NYT can write superficial editorials that address Palestinian complaints, not the root causes of the situation.

Why can't he e "appeal for a settlement freeze"? Because when he did it last time the Abbas ignored it for 9out of the 10 months and then came to negotiate an extension - not peace. Why can't he e "appeal for a settlement freeze" - no one trusts Abbas to make the needed concessions on his side.

What does a simple prisoner exchange, the kind carried out by the U.S. with many opposing powers, have to do with regional border issues and peace agreements?

this morning when I read the editorial I actually felt the visceral disgust towards the NYT that my husband has been preaching at me all these years - he used to beg me not to buy it when we lived in the States. How they managed to twist the sacrifice that we made into something sinister is unbelievable.

the NYT is paying paid by arab money ? It is was i have been told,does anyone know if it is true ?.

In an incredible hypocritical piece of article, a shrink tells off the Israeli PM. What would he say if it were his own son? he's certainly not an israeli who thinks of Gil'ad as of his son. The festival of arab celebration will pass quickly, Gil'ad will be back with his life, and the terrorists would be worse there than in Israeli prisons.

Bibi didn't say yes to Hamas and no to Fatah - the government said 'yes' to policy, which safeguards our soldiers.

This has always been a separate matter, it has nothing to do with the peace process. People think this is a big day, it is not, it not a ground breaking prisoner swap. There was a lot of pressure involved in this 'deal', perhaps not the sort of way to achieve peace. You have Cast Lead, Dubai, Arab Spring (Syria), then finally privileges of prisoners. I mean that is a lot of pressure. You have Iranian scientists being killed, I mean no one is safe in Iran, not Moqtada nor the Ayatollah or Ahmadi. The problem with Hamas is they are controlled via foreign powers, most groups take state sponsorship, but run their own race. I mean the IRA got weapons from Qaddafi, but they did not let him run their campaign or define their objectives. When they decided to make peace, they did, regardless. If it was simply put pressure on Hamas, but its far wider. I mean this is pressure via disproportionate use of force. Maybe 15% will return to terror, but the others it is totally different from before. You have the disengagement from Gaza, Hamas run Gaza. The PA has never had more authority in the WB. Deals like this will not lead to peace, you change the Hamas Charter, I would release a lot of prisoners. Israel can fill those cells up very quickly so it is like you always get the same thousand back, so threats to take more hostages. What does it achieve. I kill 1000, arrest 1000, the you get a 1000 back. That would lead to bankruptcy. Your losing 1000 and get the same 1000 back.

If Y-Net doesn't like the NYT editorial opinion (it rarely does), buy the paper and hire new people to run it. Alternatively, Y-Net could just start selling in the US. Or maybe just acknowledge that some people have a right to a different perspective. Netanyahu could also prove the NYT entirely wrong tomorrow. In New York, the sun does not rise and set on Netanyahu's backside. Believe it or not, it is an American news outlet, not an Israeli one.

understand...the NYT's has always sympathised and even supported HAMAS....why do they now whine about it?

Nothimg, but nothing can really satisfy the 'political' pundits of the 'most venered' NYT. Lets analyse the Shalit deal; it consists of a human response, part of the Jewish tradition (when saving One life, you're saving a whole world!), and then there is that RECIPROCITY element, the fundamental core of any trading (we know how the Arab mentality's : I did you a favour, you should respond with something more valuable to me-an Arab will establish the norms in a deal-). So, in their ivory tower, the NYT spokespeople for the enbattled Obama, see fit to overlook the regional-cultural aspect of the Shalit Deal. Whether Mr. Netanyahu has requested a simple quid proco from Abbas, seems to follow the reasoning of the successful human trading (what matter to the ME slave traders is the Price) is left to Fatah to come out and declare what is the quid procco.

First, let me say I am fully aware that NYT and other papers - all around the world - have some serious improvements to be made when reporting on Israel. That said, the Gilad Shalit deal was a political decision. And for that reason it has political implications. Yes, it was humanitarian - returning the boy to his family, which we all feel for. And yes, it will be hard on us here in Israel with the release of many who have attacked the country. But we must also acknowledge that the deal has implications on the political level. The deal will weaken Fatah's position, it was an engagement with Hamas (though indirectly) and a big PR victory for them - as we much might portray how we value life more to counterbalance this, and Bibi HAS been dodging the issues of settlements and engaging with the peace process. People, being for Israel doesn't mean blindly supporting everything and attacking any who criticise. As Jews we have a proud history of being rational, pragmatic and open minded. Lets not sully that.

The NYT has been a leftist garbage rag for many, many years even going back to before WW2. Jews being deported never made the headlines on Page 1, you could find snippets on the atrocities being committed perhaps on Page 16. And, to think that over the years many Jews have been the chief editor for this newspaper whose only value is that it is the right size to line the bottom of birdcages to collect bird feces. To Chaya #5 thank goodness you came around to realize your husband was absolutely correct. Chag Sameach

The NYT is not exactly known for its pro Israel stance and Bradly Burston famous for writing editorials for Haaretz is probably one of the most infamous when it comes to Israel. The NYT it appears is not to clued up on the facts either. Bib has been reaching out toAbbas including giving him a 10 month building freeze but everytime he says it the reply is no, no, no. A little fact the left wing media constantly forget to include. There is also the litte fact in this case that Hamas were holding Gilad not Fatah so it was Hamas he needed to negotiate with. The NYT is a rag that makes Al Jazeera look good.

But the NYT can't stand that and tries to blame him for that. But a huge majority of Israelis support the deal. Are they all to blame too? The editors of the NYT just don't get it.

and pressure handed a victory to the Arabs, and now the pressure to give in to Fatah has already begun. The word 'Yes' after 1,000s of years of seeing what the world is like, should not be in the vocabulary of the Jewish nation.

Perfectly said.

The media is the media they have the right to say what they want. then again everyone else does to. The only difference is the NTY times has the ability to publish what it wants when it wants. This advantage should not be mistaken for wisdom or for higher intellect. As the NY times itself showed that no matter how much arrogance the organization has it can't use its arrogance to compensate for its lack of understanding.

at the camera while father and son greet each other.

Nonsense written by haters of Israel. Let's hope a Republican is elected in 2012!

It is time to cancel the subscriptions to the NYT. When ad revenues go into the toilet the editorial staff will get religion and adopt some sanity and fairness.

What are you quoting the NYT? Who in Israel cares what they think? What's the matter YNET is too lazy to write its own editorials?

NYT=Cow dung! Don't pay any mind to these journalist hacks'; I really wish they'd go out business, but I guess when you have a bunch of mindless readers who are willing to read their bias tripe--well, shamefully they will always have an audience. God bless Gilad. God bless Israel and His Jerusalem... A Christian Zionist

The country of Israel has 7 million people. We are a family here, and thank god, we have each other.

that means!!!!! PROPAGANDA AGAINST ISRAEL!!!

that is a good article. if netanyahu wants peace it is easy for him. but he does not...

Natanyahu shows he negotiates with terrorist nad not with the ones who seek peace.

"Let's talk here, today, at the United Nations...what is there to stop us?" PM Natenyahu, September 23, 2011 How much more clear can one get?? Israel said YES, Abbas replied, NO. Abbas and the PA have the open opportunity to talk peace with Israel even today, right now, this very minute. But they keep saying no. NYT is living in a fantasy. Settlement construction is a reasonable topic for DISCUSSION, but not as a PRE-condition to even beginning discussions. At least that's the opinion of the US, EU, and Middle East Quartet. (see their statements on September 24, 2011)