The New York Times editorialized in its Friday March 27 edition that if Binyamin Netanyahu wants to prove that he is a 'partner for peace,' all he has to do is surrender to all 'Palestinian' demands.
None of the steps the Times calls for is required by any international agreement into which Israel has entered. Even the Road Map - to which Israel presented fourteen reservations that were ignored by the Bush administration - requires that the 'Palestinians' first do something that they have assiduously refused to do for the past fifteen and a half years: dismantle the terrorist organizations.
Let us review each of the Times' action items.
The Times calls on Israel to "freez[e] further settlement construction and expansion in the West Bank." Perhaps 
On what basis do the security experts on the New York Times editorial board determine that there are any roadblocks that are not needed?
the Times wishes to require that Jews who currently live in Judea and Samaria undergo vasectomies and tubal ligations, respectively, or that they seek the Times' permission before engaging in unprotected sexual relations. It is part of the ordinary course of human events that couples marry and have children. Those who are able to afford it may expand their homes to accommodate their growing families. It is often the case that married children wish to live near their parents. While Israel's government can and has placed limits on the creation of new 'settlements', limiting people's ability to expand their homes or otherwise build on property that they have legally purchased is a level of government interference that the Times would rightfully decry if it were imposed on America's citizenry.
More importantly, it has now been more than forty years since Israel liberated Judea and Samaria in a defensive war in which three Arab countries - Egypt, Syria and Jordan - attempted to destroy the Jewish state and annihilate its people. The 'Palestinians' have turned down dozens of attempts to give them a state - most recently in September 2008.
In most cases, the 'Palestinians' have declined the offer of a state without explanation. In some cases, they have not even bothered to respond to offers made to them. In no case have they ever made a counter-proposal. They continue to stick to the absolutist position that they have held since before the State of Israel was ever established: no Jewish state. Even their proclaimed willingness to accept only the 'territories conquered in 1967' comes with an insistence that a state on that territory is just a 'phase', and with an insistence on flooding what remains of Israel with 'refugees' who would demographically overwhelm the Jewish state.
At what point, if ever, will the Times accept that Judea and Samaria need no longer sit in suspended animation waiting for the 'Palestinians' to accept it? 50 years? 100 years? 200 years? What precedent is there for such a situation in human history and how can the Times justify setting this one?
The Times calls on Netanyahu to "lift roadblocks between Palestinian cities and towns that are not needed for security." On what basis do the security experts on the New York Times editorial board determine that there are any roadblocks that are not needed for security? Israel has lifted every roadblock it can - including some it should not have lifted.
Two weeks ago, the IDF lifted a roadblock near Shechem (Nablus) and within a few days we got this terror attack. Last week, we almost got this terror attack.
Israel is a democracy. Does the Times really believe that we voted for a right-wing government because we want Netanyahu to risk our lives by foolishly lifting roadblocks? Or is the Times suggesting that Netanyahu should just ignore the election results?
The Times calls on Netanyahu to "stop the humiliating eviction of Palestinians" in eastern Jerusalem. The "eviction" is not being carried out by the Israeli government, but by the City of Jerusalem, which is attempting to enforce its zoning laws by removing illegally built homes from the center of an area designated as a national park. Are there zoning laws in Manhattan? If a group of minorities built and occupied a cluster of shanties in the middle of Central Park, would the Times object to New York City removing them? If not, why should the City of Jerusalem be treated any differently than the City of New York?
The Times calls on Netanyahu to "expand exceptions to the blockade to allow the import of cement and reconstruction materials" into Gaza. The Times is effectively suggesting that we allow Gilad Shalit to rot away in Hamas captivity in Gaza by giving up the only leverage that is forcing Hamas to negotiate for his release. The Times is also suggesting that we allow materials into Gaza that are more likely to be used to construct rockets than to be used to rebuild 'Palestinian' homes destroyed in Hamas' war on Israel. Is the Times willing to take responsibility for the Israelis who will - God forbid - be killed and wounded if rocket fire resumes at the levels of November and December? Does the Times believe that Israelis elected Netanyahu to give in to Hamas terror like that?
The Times calls on Netanyahu not to "get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah faction - as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians." I don't recall hearing that Netanyahu has objected to a unity government under those circumstances, but so far at least, that is not what is on the table. The 
The implication is that Israel, via the mysterious and powerful 'Israel Lobby', controls the United States.
'Palestinians' are seeking a formula that will allow Hamas and Fatah to join a unity government without accepting past agreements ("respecting" them instead) and without accepting Israel's right to exist. In fact, a Fatah spokesman on 'Palestinian' television announced ten days ago that Fatah doesn't want Hamas to accept Israel's right to exist. Why then is the Times implying that Netanyahu is the obstacle?
The Times calls on Netanyahu not to launch a preventive war against Iran. Israel is a democracy. Israelis elected Netanyahu and the current Knesset because we believed that they were best able to promulgate a policy that will protect us against Iranian nuclear weapons. We did not elect the New York Times or Barack Obama. We expect - as would the citizens of any democracy - that our government will act in our best interests in meeting the Iranian threat. For the Times to suggest that our government should subordinate our security and our best interests to someone else's interests is odious and anti-democratic.
But the Times' most hideous demand is the penultimate one. The Times calls on Netanyahu to "recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians - and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them." For anyone who missed it, the implication is that Israel, via the mysterious and powerful 'Israel Lobby', controls the United States and can prevent the Obama administration from pursuing its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the 'Palestinians'.
Does the Times really believe that? If so, American Jewry had better start packing its bags.