Editorial
A24
First, NYT misstates the purpose of the IAF operation. The purpose is to destroy Hamas' capacity for launching rockets against Israel, not "to weaken the militant Palestinian group." The difference may seem subtle but NYT's assertion is too general. Then, NYT expresses skepticism about the likelihood of IAF success without offering evidence or an explanation why.
NYT also offers a poor explanation for its opposition to a ground invasion. The editorial board writes, "Any prolonged military action would be disastrous for Israel and lead to wider regional instability." How so?
The editorial board, however, acknowledges that Hamas is "unconcerned about their people's suffering - and masters at capitalizing on it." This admission is heartening.
Posts
Good points, especially about their opposition to a ground invasion and their cliched line about "wider regional instability".
ReplyDeleteOther points:
Everything – including Israeli defensive measures – must inevitably flow into "a durable peace agreement and a two-state solution". The NYT can't seem to look at any Israeli move outside of that paradigm.
The Times says Olmert must do things that are "politically unpalatable," without realizing they are that way because there’s no peace partner, not because of intransigent right-wingers.