By Ethan Bronner
December 2, 2008
A8
The first paragraph is supposed to be an attention-grabber, but that doesn’t mean that it can remain distinct from the content of the rest of an article. Bronner does not offer the reader an explanation for how Clinton’s comments about Iran, Jerusalem, and the Iraq War will connect with her new role as secretary of state.
Bronner’s characterizations are intriguing. He is a lover of the word hawkish and now has a new rendition - which could be the creation of a high school student – “hawkish-sounding.” Given that birds such as hawks don’t speak, the metaphor’s utility is utterly lost.
To contrast with “hawkish-sounding” is, interestingly, “liberal,” not dovish. In Bronner’s view, one is either a hawk or a liberal. And he lays out a list of what a “liberal Israeli” would support: “negotiating with Iran and coaxing Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights, to make peace with Syria, and from most of the West Bank and East Jerusalem, to foster the creation of a Palestinian state.” These are reasonable, liberal opinions in the NYTimes’ view.
To be fair, Bronner does give some credence to “others, who say the Arab world is not ripe for a deal or who want Israel to keep the territory for reasons of security or history… Even some who favor compromise are suspicious of potential pressure.”
A quote from Raghida Dergham, who writes a column in Al Hayat, the London-based pan-Arab daily, is, frankly, laughable. Dergham takes the concept of linkage to the nth degree.
Rather than deal with one difficult issue at a time, she proposes addressing everything all at once, a rather sophomoric notion.
Bronner includes this overly ambitious, impossible notion because he actually agrees with it. “The moment may be ripe for a grand bargain aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions and spreading influence. Diplomatic steps would include Israeli territorial withdrawals in exchange for regional recognition,”he writes.
There is a great deal wrong with this view, but to start, making an equivalence between stopping Iran’s nuclear program and Israeli territorial withdrawals, is mistaken.
“Given Mrs. Clinton’s strong pro-Israel credentials, the advocates of this view argue, she could carry it out,” writes Bronner. As if the Israelis are the ones who need to be convinced to make a peace agreement!
Posts
Good point about the NYT projecting onto liberal Israel.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted how Bronner frames the argument of "others". The Arab world (very general term;) is not "ripe" (Who said it had to be ripe? How about just "willing"?)? Also, there are others who don’t want to keep the territory indefinitely, but only until the PA is willing and able to come to terms with compromise and will be able to prevent attacks – rocket and other – against Israel.
You end with a major point about the views of Dergham and Bronner.
In addition… Not only do the Israelis not need to be pushed, but the Arabs do…big time. Also, can fear of Iran really bring the Arab world to a genuine peace with Israel? More problematic, can fear of Iran bring specifically the Palestinians to a genuine peace with Israel? When you juxtapose fear of Iran with Palestinian concerns, this formulation seems much more flimsy.
Where the hell did Bronner come up with this:
ReplyDelete"For pro-Western Arabs and liberal Israelis, this is a widely held view: that the moment may be ripe for a grand bargain aimed at stopping Iran’s nuclear ambitions and spreading influence. Diplomatic steps would include Israeli territorial withdrawals in exchange for regional recognition. Given Mrs. Clinton’s strong pro-Israel credentials, the advocates of this view argue, she could carry it out."
Who honestly advocates a direct linkage between stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions and Israel-Palestinian territorial compromise?
Just Bronner I think.