With Olmert, NYT Breaks Tradition

"Olmert Says Israel Should Pull Out of West Bank,"
A6, Tuesday, 9/30/08
By Ethan Bronner

This was a short, straightforward article reporting the remarks Olmert recently made in a Yediot Aharonot interview. There was much more reporting than analysis by the Times’ Bronner.

Some of Olmert’s hyperbolic remarks, however, could have used a thorough parsing. For instance, Bronner quotes Olmert as saying “who thinks seriously that if we sit on another hilltop, on another hundred meters, that this is what will make the difference for the State of Israel’s basic security.” He also cited Olmert as saying that Israeli defense strategists are stuck on antiquated defense doctrine, that concepts like “controlling territories” are “worthless”.

Of course Olmert is referring to radical West Bank Jews and the outposts they try to establish deep in the West Bank, beyond Israel’s barrier. Yet these Jews don’t cite as their motivation security for Israel. Their presence there is ideological.

Also, “controlling territory” to enhance “Israel’s basic security” is not “worthless”. Later in the article, Bronner quotes Olmert detailing a prospective West Bank withdrawal as leaving “a percentage of these territories in our hands”. But keeping these territories is not based solely on demography or the nightmarish prospect of dismantling small cities. It is based on defense through topography. It is vital Israel has some of the West Bank’s high ground near the Green Line, as this high ground is essentially a cliff overlooking Israel’s coastal plain – the heart of the country. Its retention by Israel is vital to prevent rocket attacks and to secure itself against a future land invasion. This is why the majority of Israelis, including Olmert, understand the need to hold onto a small portion of the West Bank. This could have served as an informed counterpoint.

It is likely Olmert didn’t intend to mock the importance to Israel of strategic depth. So why did Olmert make these thoughtless comments? He was speaking to the large minority of Israelis who support perpetual Israeli control over the entire West Bank and its two million Palestinians. It’s unfortunate Olmert feels the need to sound provocative and make ludicrous comments like these. Of course, citing the defense risks in a current and complete West Bank withdrawal does nothing to sell his plan. At the very least, Olmert could’ve spoken of the impracticality of continuing to rule over a hostile and growing population.

Bronner reports another shift in Olmert’s thinking: dividing Jerusalem. Here, Bronner cites one of Olmert’s rationales in dividing the city, writing of “continuing risk of terrorist attacks against civilians like those carried out this year by Jerusalem Palestinian residents.” Yet he neglects to mention the oft-discussed risk of looming rocket attacks on Jerusalem’s Jewish neighborhoods if the city was divided. This too could have served as an informed counterpoint.

Bronner quotes Olmert giving his own citizens some tough love, “we face the need to decide but are not willing to tell ourselves, yes, this is what we have to do. We have to reach an agreement with the Palestinians…” Who exactly is “we”? Are not a majority of Israelis “willing to tell” themselves what is required for peace with the Palestinians? What would've served to balance this remark is a telling line from the Yediot interview, omitted from the Times article:

"Unfortunately, the Palestinians don't have the necessary courage, strength, internal determination, will or enthusiasm."

How could Bronner leave this out? Maybe it's because he would've had to explain to readers what Olmert wasn't saying when he spoke of peace based on Israeli withdrawal. It sort of seems like Olmert's talking out of both sides of his mouth. Unless of course one understands that Israeli withdrawal is predicated not on the unreasoned belief in reciprocal Palestinian compromise, but on Israeli self-preservation. The Israeli intent in talking up a peace deal with the Palestinians is to cover Israel as it more or less unilaterally withdraws from the West Bank in the coming years -- withouth a willing or able peace partner. Bronner chose not to share this with readers. It's more likely that he's unaware.

On Iran, Olmert remarks that the go-it-alone approach to preventing Iranian nukes is Israeli “megalomania”. Again, Olmert overextends himself with this hysterical remark that’s off the mark. Olmert's subsequent point -- responsibility for preventing a nuclear Iran should be shared by the international community -- could've stood alone. Bronner in turn could have commented on the international community’s meager efforts to date – Russian and Chinese obstruction, stalled sanctions, the IAEA reports, the U.S.'s politicized N.I.E., the energy deals Iran has struck with the EU. A few of these tidbits could’ve shown that an Israeli attack is a concept born primarily of realism and reluctance, not of bravado.

Throughout this very dry report by Bronner, he had an opportunity to offer some insightful analysis, to elaborate on some of Olmert’s points and to read between the lines. Instead, the common New York Times practice of challenging Israeli statements was shelved. This may be due to Olmert's statements -- incomplete points and condescension -- themselves reading like a New York Times editorial.