Soccer Dad: The wrong focus in an editorial

October 25, 2006

The wrong focus in an editorial

When Hamas won the legislative elections in the Palesitnian Authority, The New York Times had the good sense to title their editorial In the Mideast, a Giant Step Back (January 27, 2006) However some of what was published in the editorial lacked any sense whatsoever.

First of all there was a failure to come to terms with what Hamas's election meant.

There are many reasons to explain why Palestinians voted to hand over their government to Hamas, an organization that revels in terrorism and is sworn to destroy Israel. The inability of President Mahmoud Abbas's party, Fatah, to run its affairs is first on the list, if pre-election polls of Palestinians were accurate. Fatah has been corrupt and inept, and it represented the status quo, not a happy position given the lawlessness in Gaza, the unemployment rate in Nablus and the despair among young people in Jericho. Mr. Abbas didn't help matters much, proving weak and incapable of imposing control over the battered Palestinian Authority.

Many reasons? I think there was one important one: that the Palestinians are not interested in peace through compromise.

And, of course, the editorial found some way to blame Israel for the lack of Palesitnian moderation

Israeli hard-liners can blame themselves as well. Even though most reasonable people have recognized Mr. Abbas as a far more pragmatic negotiating partner than Yasir Arafat was, Prime Minister Sharon failed to give Mr. Abbas any concession that he could point to as an achievement.

Another problem was some misplaced nostalgia for Yasser Arafat

It would be nice to believe that Hamas, now that it is assuming the reins of power and the burden of actually having to govern, will renounce its call for the destruction of a sovereign state, disarm its private army, get into the business of making life better for Palestinians and try to negotiate the creation of a real Palestinian state. While we're not hopeful, we are reminded that the Palestine Liberation Organization of the late Mr. Arafat, of which Mr. Abbas was once second in command, was born in terrorism. For many years Mr. Arafat and his gunmen were hunted by Israel, much as Hamas has been in recent years.

Little acknowledgement here that Arafat never gave up terrorism. Perhaps because he was using it as a negotiating tactic the editors of the Times forgave him that.

And finally the editorial was suffused with a hoping against hope type of perverse optimism.

Hamas has a choice between governing and terror. Is the party more interested in making sure that the electricity and water stay on, that Palestinian boys and girls make it to school, and that these battered people finally get a state of their own? Or is it more interested in continuing its campaign to destroy Israel? If Hamas chooses the latter, it's more than likely that it will not be around for long, and rightly so.

Yes. Hamas has continued its campaign to destroy Israel. Or to destroy as much of Israel as it can right now. And Hamas is still around.

What's the problem now acording to the NY Times? The Wrong Partner in Israel.

American and European diplomats have been arguing that the one positive result of the Lebanon war could be new momentum toward a wider Middle East peace. The idea was that a new awareness of the limits of Israeli military power and growing Arab fears of Shiite radicalism would push both sides toward the necessary compromises.

That now seems less likely than ever. The chief Palestinian party, Hamas, refuses to take the most minimal steps required for diplomatic credibility � a clear rejection of terrorism, acceptance of prior agreements and acknowledgment of Israel�s legitimacy. Efforts by the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to bring Hamas around have not gotten as much support as they should from Israel. With Israel Beiteinu joining Mr. Olmert�s coalition, they are likely to get even less.

Those American and European diplomats that the Times cites, apparently missed a different implication that reasonable people might have taken from the wars of this past summer. That is given that the flashpoints were Gaza and Lebanon, terrirtories that Israel withdrew from - at great cost - that the central issue is not territory, but Israel's existence.

Two unrepentant terrorist organizations struck at Israel, even though Israel had denied them their sole claim to legitimacy. And instead of being outraged that these terror organizations were operating with impunity, the world was concerned whether Israel's response was "proportional."

I'd even argue that if those diplomats are encouraging the impression that Israel was moving towards "necessary compromises" they were hardening the positions of Hamas and Hezbollah. The failings of those organizations are not that they lack "diplomatic credibility" but that they lack international legitimacy as they conform to the legal definition of terrorist organizations and thus exist and operate outside of the bounds of international law.

The problem the Times has is that its editors are so focused on a solution to the Middle East conflict that is not currently possible that it focuses on irrelevancies like the makeup of the Israeli government. Whether or not Avigdor Lieberman is in the government will not effect the "peace process" such as it is. What matters is whether or not the Palestinian view Israel as permanent. By failing to attach any responsibility or assess any penalty for their continued refusal to accept Israel, the editors of the New York Times do their part to prolong the conflict and increase the violence.

UPDATE: More at BuzzTracker.

Shiloh Musings writes If the NY Times doesn't like it, it must be good...

Her husband, My Right Word, asks how Israel failed to support Abbas