Soccer Dad

The post's views evolve

Mr. Sharon's Resolve
Editorial Washington Post Thursday, August 18, 2005; Page A20

What Mr. Sharon calls his "unilateral disengagement plan" will advance the chances of peace only if Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas reciprocates by disarming and bringing to heel groups such as Hamas, which are responsible for many terrorist attacks on Israel. And it will bear fruit only if the Israeli leader stands ready for further negotiations toward the eventual establishment of a Palestinian state.

Preelection Turmoil
Editorial Washington Post Sunday, January 1, 2006; Page B06

Already, too, democracy is showing its benefits. Faced with the possibility of defeat by Hamas, Fatah has been forced to overhaul the aging and corrupt cadre left behind by Yasser Arafat and install young reformers at the top of its legislative list. Their leader, the Israeli-imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, published a remarkable letter in Palestinian newspapers Friday apologizing for Fatah's mistakes and asking voters for another chance. Hamas itself is showing some pragmatism: Its newly elected council members supported the election last week of a Christian woman as mayor of Ramallah, the most important West Bank town. A senior Israeli army official recently predicted that if Hamas did win the elections it would continue to curtail attacks on Israel.

Israel's West Bank Choice
Editorial Washington Post Wednesday, March 15, 2006; Page A18

So it's not surprising that Mr. Olmert would have ordered yesterday's sensational raid on a Palestinian prison in the West Bank, in which Israeli forces captured six militants accused of murdering a right-wing Israeli minister in 2001. True, Palestinian leaders invited the intervention by suggesting that the ringleader of the group would soon be freed, and U.S. and British monitors withdrew from the prison minutes before the raid, reportedly because of their own objections to security arrangements. But this was an act tailored for Israeli voters, some of whom will be as pleased by the predictable expressions of Palestinian and international outrage as they are by the roundup of bad guys.

The Bush administration is wisely keeping a low profile as it watches these electoral and military adventures. Once a new government is formed, however, President Bush may find that the West Bank offers one of his greatest remaining foreign policy opportunities. If elected, Mr. Olmert will certainly depend on U.S. support for his withdrawal plan, and so the administration will have an important opportunity to press for adjustments that could make possible the eventual creation of a stable Palestinian state. In the meantime, it's not necessary to accept the details of Mr. Olmert's platform, or condone preelection military raids, in order to hope that Israelis will choose the course he has put forward.

Crisis for Hamas
Editorial Washington Post Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Page A20

These developments offer an opportunity. If the terrorist operation is thwarted through the efforts of Mr. Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh of Hamas, the way may be opened to a shift by the Palestinian government away from violence. The most likely alternative is a resumption of full-scale war between Israelis and Palestinians and the destruction of the Hamas administration. Yesterday Israel was wisely holding off on military action, but it can't be expected to be patient for long. Arab governments, the United States and the European Union must press hard for the right outcome: If Hamas fails to embrace politics over violence now, it probably won't get another chance.

(I've referred to the first 3 of these editorial previously here, here, here and here.)

These editorials show the Washington Post's evolving position on the subject of relations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA). In the first, Mr. Sharon's Resolve the Post holds the Fatah dominated would do the job it hadn't done in twelve years and restrain Hamas.

Well that didn't happen. And when Hamas started campaigning the Post (in the second editorial) pretended that "democracy" was having a moderating effect on Hamas and that there should be no interference from the United States or Israel discouraging Hamas's participation in the elections.

Then in the third editorial, after the Hamas government was installed and sought to violate one of the few agreements that Fatah actually observed, the Post considered Israel's actions to be cynical, motivated by electoral concerns rather than a reasonable response to a treaty violation.

Now after Hamas has had a few months to show its contempt for peace with Israel, the Post finds moderation in Hamas. Yes the kidnapping of Gilad Shalit and wasn't an attack on Israel, it was a "Crisis for Hamas," the "moderates" were being challenged because they had the temerity to consider a two state solution. Never mind that, despite the "reporting" of the Post's Scott Wilson to the contrary

According to Palestinian negotiators here, Hamas agreed to establish a national-unity government as part of an accord signed by the largest Palestinian political factions. If formally signed Wednesday as scheduled, the agreement would signal a major shift by Hamas's political leaders, who for the first time would effectively endorse a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

(I love the weasel word "effectively", what about "explicitly?" Why does every "moderate" statement by Hamas have to be parsed to discern its moderation?), Hamas has not accepted Israel's right to exist, as HonestReporting notes

Despite the claims of some Palestinian spokespeople, however, the Hamas has still not agreed to the most basic demand of the international community - recognition of Israel's right to exist. In contrast to its initial reaction to the Prisoner's Document, the American media appears, this time, to have taken a more muted and realistic approach.

and brings several un-parsed statements demonstrating just that.

In a nutshell, then, the editors of the Washington Post seem to feel that as long as more extremist Palestinians exist those who aren't as extreme are, by definition, "moderate" or reasonable.

Of course this sort of self-delusion only serves to whitewash the nature of Palestinian politics. But the bottom line is that no major Palestinian political party accepts Israel's right to exist. It may be comforting to think otherwise, but there is no evidence to support that view.

A few final notes:

The title Crisis for Hamas is extremely offensive. There's a crisis for the Shalit family who don't know the condition of their son. But there's no crisis for Hamas. Of course that derives from the delusion I outlined above. And it is unfortunately not much different from the headline I saw so often while going through Google News!, Kidnapping of Israeli indicates Hamas rift. The logistics of such an operation such as the attack Sunday that it is unlikely that it could have been carried out without some foreknowledge on the part of the PA. The attack on the Israeli position and the resultant kidnapping and casualties show an opportunity that Hamas took advantage of. There's no rift to speak of.

Though hardly perfect, the NY Times editorial Hamas Provokes a Fight is slightly better. On the downside the Times considers it "unsettling" that Israel arrested Palestinian politicians. On the other hand it did place blame on Hamas despite a tortured attempt to separate Hamas's military wing from its political.

Here's some sense from Yossi Halevi Klein (registration required) in the New Republic

Resuming assassinations against Hamas's political echelon is, of course, a declaration of war against the Hamas regime. But given its official sanctioning of kidnapping, Hamas has already declared war against Israel. Hamas's adoption of the tactics of Al Qaeda in Iraq comes as no surprise. After the killing of Zarqawi, Hamas issued a statement mourning his death and urging continued "resistance," thereby making the Hamas regime the world's only openly pro-Al Qaeda government. Unfortunately, the international media missed the significance of that moment.

That lapse in media judgment is worth recalling in the coming days, when much of the media will be presenting the "prisoners' document"--a set of demands drawn up by Hamas and Fatah members imprisoned in Israel--as a historic Hamas concession, offering "tacit" recognition of Israel. In fact, the document does nothing of the sort. Nowhere does the document recognize the right of Israel to exist. Instead, it calls for Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders, followed by the "right" of Palestinian refugees to resettle in Israel and demographically overwhelm the Jewish state. The prisoners' document, in other words, is a plan for the phased destruction of Israel--precisely why Hamas can endorse it.

Technorati tags: New York Times, Washington Post, Media Bias, Israel, Gaza, Hamas.

Posted by SoccerDad at June 29, 2006 6:35 AM | TrackBack