Soccer Dad

What comes next?

There's interest in what will come after Israel's proposed evacuation of Gaza. Yesterday's NY Times had some ideas in "Summertime and Gaza." It starts:

If the chatter among the Israelis and the Palestinians is anything to go by, this is going to be a July to remember in the Middle East. The Palestinian Authority is planning to hold local elections in just three months. Unlike the election in January that made Mahmoud Abbas president, these elections will include Hamas, the part-time terrorist and part-time civic organization that has been the bane of Israel for so many years.

So apparently the Times sees an election including Hamas as a good thing. ("[P]art-time civic organization?" It is a terror organization that uses some of is resources to help others. But despite the willingness of some to split Hamas's functions, it's clear that even its "political" leaders organized its terror operations.) That observation doesn't jibe with something in the next paragraph:

As if that weren't enough, the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, is planning to start carrying out his controversial plan to remove Israelis from the Gaza Strip and a handful of West Bank settlements. Handled properly, the Gaza withdrawal could re-energize prospects for peace in the region like nothing else since, well, the death of Yasir Arafat. But, this being the Middle East, the disengagement also has the potential to throw the region back into turmoil and violence. Both Mr. Sharon and Mr. Abbas must stand fast against extremist factions among their own people to make sure that does not happen.

Hamas is among the "extremist factions" in the PA and the Times has no problem with it participating in elections. But if Hamas does participate in elections that makes a joke of Abbas "stand[ing] fast" against them doesn't it?
And it is not the Israeli withdrawal that will make or break peace prospects, it is a change of heart among the Palestinians. Israel has of course withdrawn from cities before only to have it followed by a mantra of "It's not enough." The traumatic uprooting and removal of people from their homes will have little effect on the prospects of peace as long as the Palestinians keep saying that they're entitled to all of Yehuda, Shomron and Azza and that nothing less will satisfy their demands and remove their justification for violence against Israel.
Later the editorial says:

Yet another settler told the prime minister that his daughter had been injured and his nephew murdered in terror attacks. "In light of all these tragedies, do we also deserve this punishment?" he asked.

Mr. Sharon has to answer unequivocally: it's not an issue of punishment, but rather one of necessity. The settlements that have sprung up outside the 1967 borders - described by one Israeli official as Israel's "playing cards" for negotiation purposes - have done much to create the untenable situation that exists today. Israel fell in love with its playing cards, the official admitted. But to have peace, Israel must give up most of those cards.

Building created an untenable situation. Well what about the other side? Palestinian nationalism is defined and represented by a terror organization that, despite giving its word 11+ years ago, never changed its tactics. If Palestinian nationalism were a moderate force, Jews would be able to live under a Palestinian regime. But it's not.

Mr. Sharon gave no ground on Monday in the face of President Bush's insistence that Israel should not go ahead with plans to build new houses in the settlement of Maale Adumim. But Mr. Bush was absolutely correct in publicly chiding Mr. Sharon by saying the "road map clearly says no expansion of settlements." Replacing Gaza with a larger Maale Adumim is not the way to peace.

And if Palestinian nationalism were open to compromise a larger Maale Adumim would not be a problem. Technically (according to the PA for sure), Gilo, Ramot and Ramat Eshkol in Yerhusalayim are "settlements" is it wrong for Israel to build in those neighborhoods? The President must be specific when addressing this, otherwise he, like the NY Times, is simply taking the Palestinians' side on this issue. If he continue saying "settlements" with no qualification he is not helping the cause of peace. The editorial ends:

Mr. Abbas, for his part, will have to do much more than just sit on the sidelines and watch the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. He must figure out a way to stop his fellow Palestinians from shooting themselves in the foot - as they are prone to do - by attacking the Israeli settlers on the way out. Mr. Abbas would do well to rein in Palestinian extremists who believe they must show the world that they are driving the Israelis out by stepping up their attacks as July nears. Unless the Palestinians want Gaza to be the last Israeli withdrawal instead of the first, it would behoove them to act sensibly.

First of all this is really outrageous and offensive. Essentially, what the editorial is saying with its snide "shooting themselves in the foot" comment is to say that terror hurts the Palestinians more than it hurts Israel. Another way of saying that is that Palesitnians should stop terror - not because it is wrong - but because it hurts their cause. That puts the editors on the same page with Mahmoud Abbas who also preaches against terror because it hurts the Palestinian cause.
But terror is wrong regardless and it is troubling that the editors of the Times are so smug about it.
Finally it's hard to take seriously the editorial's exhortation for the Palestinians not to engage in terror and act sensibly when the Times takes the view that the Palesitnians deserve all the land they deserved eleven years ago despite the terror that the Palestinian population has supported in the subsequent years. Last month the Times in an editorial questioned the judgment of the Kosovar Albanians in electing a war criminal to lead them and asserted that they had "...a new chance to show they deserve independence." (I commented on the editorial here.)
Despite the all the terror and rejection of compromise we've seen since the signing the of the Oslo Accords, the Times holds fast to its notion that giving the Palestinians everything they ask for will bring peace. It would be wonderful if it applied some of the same skepticism it showed toward the Kosovars also to the Palestinians.
Jim Hoagland's "Balancing Act in Gaza" is more nuanced and the result of thought instead of cliches. I have my disagreements with it. I'm also out of time for now. Hopefully there'll be an update tonight.

Posted by SoccerDad at April 14, 2005 06:47 AM | TrackBack