The Content of its Character

"A Way Out of Gaza"
A28, Friday 1/16/09
Editorial

A cease-fire with Hamas is proposed, then a return to peace negotiations, which is Israel’s “only real hope” for guaranteeing its long-term security. How can we have a serious peace process while legitimizing Hamas? This is why Israel declared a unilateral cease-fire. This is also why Gaza reconstruction efforts are circumventing Hamas.

A six month cease-fire with Hamas just proved a farce and waiting for them to accept an Egypt-brokered deal may have brought weeks more battles in Gaza. The editorial itself states that Israel is “right not to rely on Hamas’ promises”.

What little spare space exists is then used to point out that while diplomacy is tried, Israel “unleashed its heaviest shelling of Gaza neighborhoods, including a hit on a U.N. compound where hundreds of Palestinians had taken shelter.” Late-breaking news on an out of control Israel.

We're told that Hamas can still fire rockets, and that Israel cannot stop them militarily “any time soon. The cost in human life and anti-Israel fury would be enormous.” So there is a way to stop them? It would kill too many Palestinians? The Times shouldn't have to make an argument for more killing, but it would be nice to see the it articulating Israel's predicament.

Also, from where did the Times get this anti-Israel fury meter? If Israel pulled off a miraculous rocket-busting military operation that killed no civilians and damaged no property, would the Times ignore whatever anti-Israel fury ensued?

So if the military can't do it, then how can Israel secure its south, which is just today's problem?While reaffirming its deeply analytic belief in Israel’s self-defense, the Times tackles the problem head on. “The best protection would be to place monitors on the Egypt-Gaza border to stop smuggling that is Hamas’ lifeline.” A reference is made to U.S. equipment and technical assistance to help monitor the border.

The grads aren't mentioned, and neither is Iran. Still, what about those “homemades”? The ones that mom used to make. They'd be scary, if they weren't so crude.

Why not suggest the U.S. condition its $2 billion to Egypt on cooperation? This issue of Sinai Bedouin being bribed by arms smugglers could've elicited a sentence. There's also nothing about what Israel's response if rockets and other attacks resume. No concern that a two-state peace forged with both the West Bank and Gaza will be precluded by Hamas in power. Nothing about Israeli security goals that may have been met by the operation. Nor is there any reference to the return of Gilad Shalit.

Not to get caught up in all these distractions, the Times looks at the big picture, and the “best hope” for a negotiated peace: Abbas, who “believes in a two-state solution”. The Times usually
expresses its "hope so and so does something". Here, there's no “we hope Mr. Abbas truly believes in a two-state solution.” Is this a commitment we can afford to assume?

The uncertainty actually lies in Israel. Its elections, the Times hopes, will produce a leader “truly” committed to a two-state solution. Together with Obama, that leader must act fast to improve the lives of Palestinians. Who wouldn't be for that? But the Times should be smart enough to forecast that quality of life upgrades bring maximum resistance. It should also warn the Palestinians that resistance to Israel is hopeless and obviously destructive. Traditional condescension towards them hasn't been working.

Tony Blair recently said he'd "hesitate to cede the West Bank to the Palestinians after the nightmare Israel has faced since the Gaza withdrawal." "Land for peace," he warns, "is in itself not sufficient. Not less important is the character of the Palestinian state."

It's this character that the Times again takes for granted.