The Lesson Of The Last Few Months

"The War Within"
A34, Wednesday, 11/05/08
Editorial

If Israel was to evacuate over 100 West Bank settlements, forcibly evicting 100,000 people, what would be required? How much time would be needed? What sort of politics would be involved? Is Israel laying the groundwork for this, even if it cannot reach an agreement with the Palestinian Authority (PA)? More than just questions, these are serious concerns expressed by the Israeli public and policymakers. In its latest editorial, the New York Times appears oblivious to these issues.

The editorial, "The War Within," begins by mentioning growing settler militancy and the government's attempts to end it. One of these attempts is a decision to halt direct or indirect financing of outposts, or "unauthorized settlements". This decision is undeserving of the Times' praise. Rather, the Times feels it "exposes" Israeli duplicity: funding outposts "despite repeated pledges to dismantle" them. The issues here of funding and pledges need elaboration. As the Times reported earlier this week, the Israeli government funds West Bank regional councils, which in turn allocate – as they see fit – a percentage of those funds to outposts.

What of these "repeated pledges" by Israel? Were all outposts to be demolished immediately? Was it to be phased? These questions are necessary in light of this same editorial citing Israeli "government actions against the outposts," and Israel "removing illegal (settler) homes," leading to "militant Jewish settlers clashing regularly with Israeli police". For Times editors, these actions taken by Israel fall short of its pledges. Instead, they serve as proof that "Israel is becoming a nation at war with itself."

It would serve its readers well for the Times to clarify what this war is all about. To what end is Israel risking a civil war?

Israel has, by all appearances, taken the initial steps towards a massive West Bank pullout. In so doing, it will attempt to reach an accord with the PA, while being realistic in not relying on one. As its leaders have recently and loudly declared, Israel must end its rule over West Bank Palestinians if it wishes to remain a Jewish democracy. A majority of Israelis agree, yet have concerns about a security vacuum following withdrawal. A small, but committed minority of Israeli Jews care less about Jewish democracy and more about retaining what they believe is their biblical inheritance.

In explaining this to its readers, the Times could've easily reversed itself on the lesson of Israel's "war within". The lesson of growing anger and vigilantism among militant settlers is that Israel is readying its citizens for withdrawal and has resumed dismantling settlements.

The Times proceeds to prescribe its remedy. "As a step toward peace, Israel must…reduce the roadblocks in the West Bank that are strangling the Palestinian economy." Israel has reduced roadblocks, which anyway is a decision made at the highest levels of Israel's security services, not by politicians and certainly not by newspapers. Until the editors at the Times clarify how many and which roadblocks Israel must take down, this will remain a shallow demand.

To help "freeze all settlements and reduce the roadblocks," the Times perversely calls on the "public support of American Jews and moderate Israelis" to back up the Israeli government against the Jewish militants. Who exactly are "moderate Israelis" in the Times' lexicon? It woud be interesting to see if the Times defines as moderate an Israeli who wants Israel to leave the territories, but who doesn't want Israel pressured.

This editorial's focus should've been on the Palestinians. Actually, the reason for roadblocks isn't a bad place to start. Palestinian militancy, including from Fatah (which controls the PA), illicit security measures like these. These militants knowingly sabotage a functional economy (and a normalized Palestinian life) because such an economy would naturally be joined with Israel's. Furthermore, what is not reported is that the IDF and its roadblocks are what's prevented a Hamas takeover of the West Bank, a development the Times would surely dread. Instead, the Times simplistically characterizes roadblocks as "strangling the Palestinian economy".

Most important, the PA has consistently shown its unwillingness to accept Israel's permanence. Anti-Israel defamation in PA-controlled media, promotion of the right of return, and the rejection of Israel as a Jewish state, should make clear that for the PA, an accord with Israel is artificial. Fatah's fight against Hamas is about self-preservation and not about a divide over accepting Israel. Both movements overtly disavow any meaningful settlement with Israel. Israelis know this and have few illusions of long-term peace, yet face a dangerous dilemma in their desire to withdraw from land.

Meanwhile, as if Israelis needed more pressure, here comes a prestigious paper like the Times barking orders and platitudes. "The lesson of the last few months should be clear to all. Israel will have no peace – with its neighbors or its own citizens – without a peace agreement." Fittingly, an asinine and banal line ends this piece.

It's unacceptable, not to mention disappointing, that one of the world's most respected newspapers is either unaware of the reality in which Israel finds itself, or willfully blind to it. Even worse is that this grotesque editorial was published the day after Barack Obama won the election, when there was a spike in the paper's readership and thousands of people plan to save their newspapers.