Whose War Crimes?

1) "Battle Is Close in Israeli Election," A1, by Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner

2) "Iran Offers 'Dialogue' with Respect' with U.S.," A5, by Nazili Fathi and David E. Sanger

3) "U.N. Chief Says Israel Is Blocking Most Gaza Aid," A13, by Neil MacFarquhar

4) "Palestinians Press for War Crimes Inquiry on Gaza," A13, by Marlise Simons

Israeli Elections
1) Battle Is Close in Israeli Election

In a follow-up article to Israel's elections two-days previous, Bronner and Kershner provide a fairly sound analysis on its results.

They understand the difficulties that Livni's Kadima will have in establishing a coalition despite having won more votes in the election than Netanyahu's Likud. They also make important mention of the "fractured nature" of Israel's troubled electoral system. No political party won more than one-quarter of the population's vote.

The writers though continue to divide Livni and Netanyahu's views on the peace process in a binary fashion:

And it [the elections] left open the question of whether Ms. Livni, a supporter of a peace accord with the Palestinians, or the more hawkish Mr. Netanyahu would form the next government.

While Ms. Livni has strongly affirmed her support of the current negotiations with Fatah, Netanyahu's "hawkish" views do not signify an end to negotiations or a return to the vision of Greater Israel. Netanyahu, similar to his Prime Ministership in the 90's, appears interested in introducing more reciprocity into negotiations and making incremental, rather than sweeping progress. Bronner and Kershner duly note that Netanyahu "hopes to form a centrist coalition" even while preaching "the primacy of the right."

Iran
2) Iran Offers 'Dialogue' with Respect' with U.S.

The article by Fathi and Sanger on Ahmadjinejad's apparent acceptance of direct negotiations with the U.S. attempts to present the Iranian President and the Islamic Republic in a more moderate light than reality dictates. Here is one of the more troubling assertions:

Yet analysts note that, for all his harsh words, Mr. Ahmadinejad has sent a surprising number of positive signals to the United States in recent years. He sent a letter to President Bush in 2006 and a letter to Mr. Obama congratulating him on his election victory, and he has traveled four times to New York since he took office to take part in United Nations meetings.

None of these examples seem to have any substance beyond their rhetorical value. Ahmadinejad's visits to the UN were not used as an opportunity to extend a fig-leaf to the US, but to declare Iran's defiance of the international community and lambaste Israel as an illegitimate state.

The Times left out part of Ahmadinejad's speech in which he declares that Iran is "the biggest victim of terrorism." If Iran is only able to view itself as the victim, when it itself is world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism, it does not seem that progress in talks will be so simple. Iran has armed, financed, and even trained Shiite militias in Iraq and Taliban fighters in Afghanistan that have killed American troops. How can there be talks “in a fair atmosphere with mutual respect” when Iran is supporting the murder of Americans?

Beyond downplaying the more problematic aspects of the Iranian regime and a possible entente with America, the authors somewhat overstate potential problems with Israel. Israel will not militate against U.S. negotiations with Iran. The question is how lengthy will those negotiations be. The more time passes, the more Israel will consider the military option, in spite of how unpalatable it may be.

The authors write a pretty smart conclusion though, understanding the U.S.'s predicament:

It is almost inconceivable, some of Mr. Obama’s aides acknowledge, that the Iranians will be willing to give up everything needed to produce a weapon. And it is hard to imagine that the Israelis will settle for anything less.

Human Rights
3) U.N. Chief Says Israel Is Blocking Most Gaza Aid
4) Palestinians Press for War Crimes Inquiry on Gaza

The next set of articles are on the Times persistent coverage of allegations of Israeli human rights and war crimes violations. These allegations "include accusations from individuals and organizations that Israel violated the rules of war by singling out civilians and nonmilitary buildings, and by using weapons like white phosphorus illegally." Unfortunately, the Times allows these charges to stand as is without at least explaining Israel's predicament.

Israel has an obligation to defend its citizens. It is truly unfortunate that Palestinian civilians died in the conflict but such deaths do nothing to benefit Israel. During the conflict, Hamas placed its own civilians in peril as human shields while attempting to kill as many Israeli civilians as possible through its indiscriminate rocket fire on Israeli towns. For Hamas, the death of Israelis and Palestinians is a win-win strategy. For Israel, it is lose-lose.

In this context, it is suspect that that the Times writes that "Hamas’s practice of sending rockets into southern Israel, which often landed in civilian areas, might be viewed as a violation." Might be? Hamas' purposeful targeting of civilians is clearly a war crimes violation and it seems to be the only thing that established human rights groups can be agree upon. So much so, that they argue that "a detailed probe into Hamas's firing of Kassam rockets at Israeli communities is not necessary, because it constitutes such a 'blatant' war crime." Despite the clarity of Hamas' violations, it seems quite strange that nearly all the focus on 'war crimes' is being directed at Israel.

Human rights don't seem to be the only issue at play here, but the Times decides not to pick up on it.