More Misreading of PA, Arab and Muslim Views of Israel

"Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu"
A20, Saturday 5/23/09,
Editorial

While the Times’ latest editorial shows some fresh sensibility on Iran, it is victim to the tired dogma that informs its view of Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

Obama is urged to “come up with a strategy for constraining Iran’s nuclear program — with compelling incentives or far more dissuasive sanctions. There isn’t a lot of time for either.” Israel is “right that time is clearly on Iran’s side.” Obama should be “using the time now to prepare Europe and Russia for the necessity of much tougher sanctions if (diplomacy) fails.”

This is a start. Yet what would’ve been truly welcome is an admonishment that U.S. coalition building on Iran must not wait for, or be linked to, progress in peace talks between Israel and its neighbors – a linkage in which the President, unfortunately, believes. The Arab states, knowing, that at the end of the day, Iran will be stopped by someone else, will exploit the linkage to apply pressure on Israel while pussyfooting on the peace process.

On the two-state solution, the Times incredibly, like clockwork, urges only Israel to “embrace” the two-state solution. Lest the Times appear soft on the Palestinian Authority (PA), it writes that the PA “must do more to prove that they are capable of self-government.” In the Times' logic, promoting coexistence, let alone refraining from demonizing Israel, is not one of these responsibilities.

The rejection of Israel that underpins so much of Fatah’s politics is truly revealing when listening to the multitude of supposedly moderate calls from the region that acceptance of Israel will come when the Palestinian issue is solved. To paraphrase Ahmadinejad, "we'll accept whatever the Palestinians accept".

This also reveals the danger in the linkage the Times promotes – “working credibly and even-handedly on a peace deal is central to repairing (US) relations with the Muslim world.

Contrary to perception, a peace deal will inflame the Muslim world. This isn't because the Muslim world hates peace, but because Israel, however truncated, is seen as a colonial project. Many dishonestly, and honestly, see Muslims living there as being treated inferior to Jews. No matter the “bolstering of Abbas,” he and the PLO (ironically, itself rejecting and undermining Israel) will continue to be seen as Israel’s lackeys.

This reality makes all the more wild The Times' next idea: Obama’s June 4 Cairo speech should be used as an opportunity, not only to preach harmony with the Muslim world, but to “do better” than George W. Bush’s endorsement of a Palestinian state. What is better than that endorsement? Endorsing it to the masses in Cairo or just making good on the endorsement? Spell it out.

The Times believes that since he's a popular U.S. President, with a Muslim background, Obama will be able promote peace in the Middle East. Thought of like this, it makes sense. Thought of as promoting enduring colonialism in the heart of the Middle East, it makes less sense. Obama is already widely seen – at least on the issue of Palestine – as a Zionist tool. Okay, so try.

The problem is not that the Times sees Obama's message of accepting Israel (if it'll even be that explicit) making a difference. The problem is that the Times sees it making enough of a difference to force a policy change toward Israel. This is beyond hope. It's naivete.

The Times' dogma on the Arab-Israeli conflict misreads an undeniably monolithic Arab and Muslim view of Israel. This paper needs to stops projecting and to start tackling the realities of that region's politics.