Of All the Reasons to Arm the Palestinian Authority

"Israel Aids Palestinians With Arms"

By Isabel Kershner, A6
Saturday, September 6, 2008

In this short article, Kershner reports on Israel transferring 900 assault rifles to the Palestinian Authority (PA). She points out that in November, Israel approved the transfer of 25 armored personnel carriers from Russia to the PA. Kershner also reminds readers of Israel's release of 198 Palestinian prisoners last week, before the start of Ramadan.

It's rare when the New York Times lists more than one Israeli good-will gesture in the same article. Though don't hold your breath for praise of Israel in a Times editorial. Those are reserved for the Times' tough love: exposing Israel's "self-destructive" policies.

When describing Israel's intentions, Kershner stumbles. She states that the weapons are intended to help the PA "fulfill its obligation to dismantle anti-Israel terrorist networks." She quickly follows that point by saying the weapons "may" also be intended to ward off a "looming" Hamas takeover.

Based on the 15 year history of the PA and its record on dismantling these terrorist networks, combined with Hamas threats to route Fatah from power in the West Bank, does Kershner really mention the former as Israel's intent? The arms are obviously intended to stave off Hamas. Kershner should know that the PA has never taken serious steps to dismantle the terrorist networks. So why was this even listed as a reason for the weapons transfer, let alone stated so matter of factly?

Kershner is fair when she airs a typical PA complaint and qualifies it. She writes that Israel "places limits" with training and equipping Abbas's forces, "worred that the (PA) could turn its guns on Israelis." It's nice that this Israeli concern is given at least a line of space. If only Kershner would have pounced on it and elaborated. Is it just a bunch of renegade PA officers who use the weapons to attack Israelis? Is it widespread, a pattern? Are the Israelis making it up?

The point cannot be made in passing this way. It doesn't exactly take investigative journalism to expose the uncomfortable truth that Israel's supposed peace partners are their sworn enemies. Perhaps this is why Kershner makes no attempt to spell this out.

It's an unpleasant reality that Fatah is no partner for peace. It's sad the New York Times would rather its readers deduce this on their own, if at all.