Soccer Dad

Good start at the post

I've been waiting for the NY Times or Washington Post to acknowledge that the beginning of Palestinian rule over Gaza hasn't exactly been a resounding success or to express outrage at the destruction of Gaza's synagogues. The Times has yet to mention the mess, but the Washington Post today editorialized "Bad start in Gaza":

ONLY DAYS after the final withdrawal of Israeli forces, the Gaza Strip is on the verge of anarchy. Despite promises to impose law and order, the Palestinian Authority has allowed mobs of looters and armed extremists to rampage through former Jewish settlements, where they have burned or bulldozed synagogues left standing by Israel. Many of the valuable greenhouses that, with the generous help of international donors, were saved for use by the Palestinians have been stripped of equipment as police stood by and watched. Despite a formal agreement with Israel to maintain security, Egypt has allowed thousands of Palestinians to illegally cross its border, including rifle-brandishing militants. If it is not quickly checked, the disorder will destroy Palestinian hopes that the Gaza transfer will become a step toward statehood.

This week's events further undermine the claim of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that he can impose democratic rule of law in Gaza without directly confronting armed extremist groups such as Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Mr. Abbas keeps declaring that only Palestinian security forces will be allowed weapons and that "no one is above the law." But he also keeps shrinking from confronting the gunmen who have been parading through former Jewish settlements or punching holes in the border fence between Gaza and Egypt. "We are not going to tolerate chaos after today," Mr. Abbas declared on Tuesday. Yesterday, as the chaos continued, he instead canceled his appearance at a rally organized by his own administration.

But it's not just Mr. Abbas's weakness that's a problem, it's that such failures have continually been excused for one reason or another. Rather than assigning any responsibility to the Palestinians since 1993, the media has largely focused on perceived Israeli shortcomings. And that brings us to the flawed part of the editorial:

In Israel, continuing disorder will give a boost to hard-line challengers to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, the architect of the Gaza evacuation. As it is, Mr. Sharon probably will reiterate in an address to the United Nations today that Israel will consider no more territorial withdrawals or other concessions to the Palestinians until militant groups are dismantled.

PM Sharon's problems are presented as a political problem. His "hard-line" opponents, to the editors of the Post, are ideologically driven and on the wrong side of the political divide. Yet it is these "hard-liners" who seemingly accurately predicted the short term effect of the withdrawal. (And the Egyptian failure to provide the promised security was also warned about.) So the characterization of the Likud dissenters as "hard-line" at least for now, is simple name calling. They were correct in their assessment. To deny that this was foreseeable, implicitly the position of the Post, is to be ideologically blinded.
So the editorial was a good start, but it wasn't perfect.
Technorati Tags: Israel, Gaza, Palestinian Authority.

Posted by SoccerDad at September 15, 2005 8:25 AM