Ethan Bronner
Ethan Bronner’s article offers Peace Now (PN), “a reliable source of settlement information,” an opportunity to promote its perspective. Despite one quote from a spokesperson for the Israeli Housing Ministry, Eran Sidis, and another from Tzipi Livni, Israeli foreign minister, PN’s report stands on its own in the article, undergoing no critical examination. That can hardly be called journalism.
"Rice, in Israel..." lacks specifics in key areas. For example, it states that construction continues on the Jordan River’s west bank but does not specify where, other than mentioning building in eastern Jerusalem. (The fact that eastern Jerusalem has been annexed to Israel proper is not mentioned.) The same problem occurs later when Bronner writes about illegal outposts. 125 new structures have been added, including 30 permanent houses, he reports. The reader would like to know exactly where the building is taking place.
Bronner refers to the territories as “occupied,” coolly adopting the classification of PN. This is a fundamental PN position, which serves as the centerpiece of its anti-settlement agenda. As long as the territories are “occupied,” then the Jewish communities, or settlements, are problematic, even illegal. If they are disputed, this conclusion does not stand. PN makes a Herculean effort to avoid any doubt about this classification, ignoring a significant minority position that the territories are disputed. Ignoring a minority report, I might add, is totally un-Jewish. (See here, also, for more on the legitimacy of the claim that territories are disputed.)
Under the Quartet's Road Map of 2003, Israel promised not to build settlements, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to dismantle terrorist infrastructure. This is a strange and problematic equivalence. In an article called “Untenable Linkages,” Dore Gold fleshes out the problem of linking settlement construction to ending terrorism.
One of the main points of the piece is that Israel is building on the eastern, not just the western, side of the security barrier, which Bronner calls a “separation barrier.” Here, Bronner embraces the idea that in a final peace agreement, Israel will hold onto settlement blocs on the western side. The fact that construction occurs on the eastern side of the separation barrier is supposed to demonstrate Israel’s duplicity. This paradigm is, however, wrong. Israel has always stated that the final borders will be determined by negotiations, not by where the security barrier is.
The NYTimes betrays its own position here, not that of Israel. Apparently, it is open to construction on the western side of the barrier because it believes Israel intends to keep that territory – a position that jibes with UN Security Council Resolution 242. That would seem to be a victory for Zionists, but such absorption is only appropriate if “land swaps” occur as well. “Land swaps,” an idea not generated from 242, is unfavorable to Israel.
Bronner refers to the territories as “occupied,” coolly adopting the classification of PN. This is a fundamental PN position, which serves as the centerpiece of its anti-settlement agenda. As long as the territories are “occupied,” then the Jewish communities, or settlements, are problematic, even illegal. If they are disputed, this conclusion does not stand. PN makes a Herculean effort to avoid any doubt about this classification, ignoring a significant minority position that the territories are disputed. Ignoring a minority report, I might add, is totally un-Jewish. (See here, also, for more on the legitimacy of the claim that territories are disputed.)
Under the Quartet's Road Map of 2003, Israel promised not to build settlements, and the Palestinian Authority agreed to dismantle terrorist infrastructure. This is a strange and problematic equivalence. In an article called “Untenable Linkages,” Dore Gold fleshes out the problem of linking settlement construction to ending terrorism.
One of the main points of the piece is that Israel is building on the eastern, not just the western, side of the security barrier, which Bronner calls a “separation barrier.” Here, Bronner embraces the idea that in a final peace agreement, Israel will hold onto settlement blocs on the western side. The fact that construction occurs on the eastern side of the separation barrier is supposed to demonstrate Israel’s duplicity. This paradigm is, however, wrong. Israel has always stated that the final borders will be determined by negotiations, not by where the security barrier is.
The NYTimes betrays its own position here, not that of Israel. Apparently, it is open to construction on the western side of the barrier because it believes Israel intends to keep that territory – a position that jibes with UN Security Council Resolution 242. That would seem to be a victory for Zionists, but such absorption is only appropriate if “land swaps” occur as well. “Land swaps,” an idea not generated from 242, is unfavorable to Israel.
Abes
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment