The NY Times Solution

"Perils of an Israeli Transition"
Editorial, no author
A18

Here, we get a rare glimpse into what the editors of the NY Times op-ed section think the solution is to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The baseline statement of the author is that “a two-state solution is vital for Israel’s security.”

A two state solution is vital for the maintenance of a Jewish, democratic state. In other words, it address demographic challenges facing Israel resulting from administration of Judea & Samaria. It is only a solution in terms of security if the state created is democratic.

As usual, the author calls for a reduction in the number of roadblocks arguing that they “strangle the Palestinian economy.” This inference is unbalanced because it does not offer another explanation for why the roadblocks are there. An uneducated reader might even think the the objective of the roadblocks is to impair the Palestinian economy when the reality is that they are there to protect human beings from suicide attacks.

The author calls for “defensible frontiers” for Israel and rejects the so-called right of return. This is positive.

Later on, however, the author refers to Hamas as a “militant group” that “condones terrorism.” In fact, it is a terrorist group that executes terrorism. “A way must be found to help turn Hamas into a legitimate and acceptable negotiating partner,” the author implores. The burden lies on us – the US and Israel – to change Hamas rather than the change coming from within Hamas itself.

Toward the end of the piece, one of the strongholds of opinion regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict rears its head. If Israel does not support Abbas, then Hamas will be strengthened. This views is part of the paradigm that Abbas is moderate and Hamas extremist, when the truth is that Abbas and Hamas have more in common than is generally acknowledged.

The piece ends with a call for tough love for Israel – a common statement by Aaron David Miller and others who don’t have Israel’s best interests at heart.

Abes