A24 (Editorial), Tuesday 1/6/09
In a revelatory editorial (second in a week), the Times, which has joined the chorus of voices calling for an immediate ceasefire, further reveals its narrative of the conflict. Here are some of the key narrative tenets of Times coverage, displayed in this editorial:
- Negotiating a comprehensive, regional peace is a possible, desired goal (despite the rejectionism of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas)
- A peace agreement must be achieved as quickly (or recklessly) as possible - and the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas, is a good faith partner in this task (despite its continued incitement and demonization against Israel)
- Only diplomatic, not military, solutions are effective in creating peaceful conditions - necessitating an immediate cease-fire between all parties (and if Hamas doesn't abide?)
Despite these narrative failures, which are not well-grounded in reality, the Times does provide some positive commentary:
- The Times expresses sympathy for Israel's operation to prevent further Hamas rocket fire against its civilian population
- Hamas is condemned for its "attacks" and "virulent rejectionism"
- Hamas is clearly labeled "a proxy of Iran" - demonstrating how this conflict is connected the largely conflict between Israel and Iran, which also supports Hezbollah
- The Times argues that a ceasefire must result in the permanent halt of rocket fire and that Hamas will longer be able to restock its weaponry via smuggling tunnels between Egypt and Gaza
Rather than placing the onus on Israel by immediately calling it to abide by a ceasefire, the Times needs to focus on Hamas' inexcusable rocket fire, which if ceased would largely obviate the need for an Israeli operation. But as usual, the NYT places the burden on Israel, which is legitimately using force to defend its people.
Posts
The editorial is really bad. It’s weak analysis:
ReplyDelete- It makes a useless, passing reference to an Iranian role, but doesn’t take a sentence to point out this is diverting the world’s attention from Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Hmm…maybe this is the regime’s strategy playing out. Amazingly, that regime again played us for suckers with this move. Many should be highlighting how connected Iran is to this, but aren’t. [See Glick’s commentary]:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1231167266396&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
- This paper should be too smart to see a workable two-state agreement – if it magically happened – tamp down radicalism in the Middle East. It would inflame it, and could lead to insurrection in Jordan, Egypt, obviously Lebanon and of course, in the territories. “Obama should pick up pieces of peacemaking.” Oy.
- “Increasing the chances for negotiation a broad regional peace…means Hamas is not seen as gaining from the war.” How can they not try to define this? The reason is that Hamas needs to be further damaged and more operation is needed for Hamas not to be seen as gaining from the war.
- Embarrassingly, the Times tells readers of intensifying efforts from Arab officials for a “meaningful cease-fire,” and urges Obama to ambiguously “deal” with Syria and Iran….and rightly advocates Palestinians “needing to see that there is another way out,” but thinks that a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza is an acceptable political solution to them.
- It doesn’t at least entertain the idea of Israel deposing Hamas, which is what many are talking about. How could a vacuum be filled? How soon could the PA return? How likely is some Fatah-Hamas power-sharing? As you said, how an international presence [I hesitate to say “force”] would be ripe for manipulation and intimidation. How in protecting Israel it would ultimately never be as reliable as the IDF.
- But why this is uniquely offensive are the editorial’s condescending nods of understanding to Israel, while failing to seriously grasp its predicament.
***
ReplyDelete