2) "Gazan Doctor and Peace Advocate Loses 3 Daughters to Israeli Fire and Asks Why," A12, by Dina Kraft
3) "In Homes and on Streets, A War That Feels Deadlier," A14, by Sabrina Tavernise
4) "Why the Arabs Splinter Over Gaza," WK3, by Robert F. Worth
5) "Mission to Tehran," BR15, by Ethan Bronner
6) "What Will Increase the Chances for Mideast Peace," WK12 (Letters to the Editor)
The Times returns to form on Sunday with a slew of six pieces relating to Israel's military operations in Gaza. Expect coverage to gradually diminish as Israeli soldiers began to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
*****
Israel Declares Gaza Cease-Fire; U.N. Site Struck
Erlanger starts the coverage off with a synopsis of ongoing developments, principally Israel's call for a unilateral ceasefire that began 2 A.M. Sunday morning. He fails to note, and perhaps due to time constraints, that Hamas continued to fire rockets at Israel after the ceasefire began, injuring three Israelis.
The article makes the requisite mention of UN calls for an investigation into Israeli "war crimes." John Ging, the Gaza director of UNRWA (United Nations Relief & Works Agency), says: "The question now being asked is: is this and the killing of all other innocent civilians in Gaza a war crime?" Of course, he doesn't place Israel's military operations into context, such as Hamas' use of its own population as human shields, nor does he seem to care. It makes one wonder if UNRWA actually cares for the well-being of the Palestinians - if it did it would be quite condemnatory of Hamas' tactics - or it simply delights in vilifying Israel. UNRWA, as the main provider for Palestinian refugees and its descendants, seems to have little incentive to see the conflict come to a peaceful end.
Key mention in the piece is made of the American-Israeli "memorandum of understanding" to work closer together to prevent future arms smuggling through tunnels between Egypt and Gaza. Several European countries have also offered to work with Israel on this problem, demonstrating that through these operations, Israel has succeed on placing the issue of arms smuggling on the international agenda. Prior to this conflict, the international community showed little interest in solving this problem.
Lastly, an amusing quote from Hamas spokesman, Fawzi Barhoum: "we will not accept the presence of a single soldier in Gaza." Does that mean they'll be releasing Gilad Shalit, who has not even been permitted the legally recognized right of a visit from the Red Cross, back to Israel? I think not.
*****
Gazan Doctor and Peace Advocate Loses 3 Daughters to Israeli Fire and Asks Why
In a tragic story, three children of Dr. Izzeldin Abuelaish, a Gazan doctor who "has devoted his life to medicine and reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians," died in the course of Israel's military operations in Gaza. Unfortunately the story does not provide clear details on what actually transpired, except the implication that an Israel bomb or shell landed on his home.
Making this human drama even more vivid, Dr. Abuelaish's pain was placed live on Israeli television when he called an Israeli television journalist in order to directly share his anger and remorse.
The reporter writes that "Dr. Abuelaish is a rarity: a Gazan at home among Israelis." But the reporter doesn't recognize that something like this could only transpire in Israel and never in Gaza, where its Islamist rulers, Hamas, preach hatred not only against Israelis, but Jews.
Rather than succumb to hate though, Abuelaish encouragingly says that "I hope that my children will be the last price." Unfortunately, Hamas doesn't see it that way and will continue to use his neighborhood and others throughout Gaza as a battle ground against Israel, endangering thousands of other children's lives.
Will the sanctity of human life ever trump Hamas' destructive nihilism?
*****
In Homes and on Streets, A War That Feels Deadlier
The third, rather shallow article serves as platform to voice the hyperbolic rhetoric of Gazans, who accuse Israel of "going after all of us" (in a war of indiscriminate war of slaughter) and a war against Palestinian civil society in order to deny them self-determination.
The Times appears quite concerned that Israel is "targeting the institutions of the Palestinian state." This presumes that Hamas is attempting to build anything like a "state," which does not appear to be the case. Hamas is more interested in futilely attempting to destroy Israel than build a viable society. In this regard, Hamas has closely intertwined its terrorist and social infrastructure (e.g. police stations), making them near one and the same. Hamas does not have clear military objectives as the Times would like one to believe. That fact that Hamas has used mosques to stockpile weapons should attest to that reality.
Most importantly, the Times gets to mention one of its favorite critiques of Israel - that it is fueling Palestinian extremism through its military operations: "this short war has been the worst in living memory, one that they [Gazans] say is likely to further deepen age-old resentments." In a statement like this, responsibility for Palestinian extremism is placed squarely with Israel, rather than with Palestinians themselves. Where does personal/communal accountability lie? Without Israel military operations, wouldn't Hamas still be indoctrinating its people to hate Jews? That is the sad reality that the Times chooses not to recognize.
Regardless of Palestinian extremism, which will continue to proliferate with Hamas indoctrination, Israel must assert its right to self-defense. Unfortunately, civilian suffering occurs, and Hamas' military tactics make that completely unavoidable.
*****
Why the Arabs Splinter Over Gaza
In this analysis piece in the Week-in Review, Robert F. Worth writes a worthy piece that deserves a fit to print label. He recognizes that Arab inability to reach a consensus on Gaza is indicative of two issues:
- The danger that political Islam (Islamism) poses to the legitimacy of the established (and corrupt) Sunni Arab states, principally Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Given that a Hamas victory would bolster Islamist movement in the Middle East, the Sunni Arab states are tacitly supporting Israel, even while vociferously condemning it. Worth recognizes that this is similar to the situation during the Second Lebanon War in which the Sunni Arab states also wished for Hezbollah to suffer an embarrassing defeat.
- Fear of Iranian hegemony in the Middle East. The Sunni Arab states view Iran's support of Hamas and Hezbollah, with the help of its lesser partner Syria, as well as its move to acquire nuclear weapons, as a powerplay for regional hegemony. If Hamas is strengthened, it will also strengthen Shia Iran, which is anathema to Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia.
*****
Mission to Tehran
This book review, penned by NYT Jerusalem Bureau Chief Ethan Bronner, discusses the merits of "Restoring the Balance: A Middle East Strategy for the Next President," a compendium of pieces from analysts from the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution and the Council on Foreign Relations.
The book rightfully recognizes that Israel-Palestine is not the core of conflict in the Middle East, but Iran, the epicenter of radicalism and terrorism in the region that has created havoc in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Gaza. Beyond this essential recognition though, this book gets little right, believing that a "Grand Bargain" can entice Iran to correct its wayward ways. This can apparently be achieved by opening "direct dialogue with Tehran quickly."
But what will be the price of achieving this Grand Bargain? U.S. reconciliation to an Iranian hand in governance in Iraq and continued support of Hezbollah and Hamas? This hardly appears to be a new reality. And what if such a Grand Bargain fails and Iran continues to rapidly develop its nuclear program? In a desire to avoid conflict, this book seems to also avoid all the difficult questions.
On the Israel-Palestine front, the analysts recommend fostering "reconciliation between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas by, among other things, reducing demands on Hamas, and press Israel to end all construction in occupied lands even in existing settlements and in Jerusalem." This naive perspective places all the onus on Israel, forcing it to make greater concessions while its negotiating partner becomes more radicalized with the addition of Hamas. And what's if Hamas has no desire to negotiate, as it has repeatedly affirmed in its calls for the destruction of Israel and its demonization of Jews? Israel needs to come to its own national consensus on what is to be done on the West Bank, but peace will be no closer by affirming, rather than challenging Palestinian rejectionism.
In attempt to distance themselves from the failed policies of George W. Bush, these analysts jump to the other end of the spectrum, placing undue faith in diplomacy in a region where accommodating diplomatic initiatives have achieved very little.
*****
What Will Increase the Chances for Mideast Peace
The day's pieces also featured five letters to the editor in response to earlier op-eds by Jeffrey Golberg, a writer for the Atlantic Monthly, and Thomas Friedman, regular NYT columnist.
Three out of five of the letters are actually supportive of Israel, noting Hamas' radically anti-Jewish ideology, while one is neutral (supportive and critical), and another negative.
Unfortunately, the negative letter printed accuses Israel of state terrorism through purposefully targeting Palestinian civilians. Such shallow slander should not be fit to print.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment