Not Understanding the Game

"An Agenda for Mr. Netanyahu"
A26, Tuesday 5/12/09, Editorial

In Israel, and among its supporters, there is deep and profound concern both of the looming threat of Iran, and a world that increasingly fails to grasp the nature of its neighbors. This is a pivotal time for Israel and its ability to stave off the threats of a new era -- both military and political. No doubt, Prime Minister Netanyahu's meeting with President Obama will reflect the seriousness of the moment.

Yet what most concerns the Times are not these Israeli concerns, nor is it Israel's rationale vis-a-vis Iran or its policy review on the peace process. What concerns the Times are moves Israel should make that will supposedly ease the current peace process deadlock. "Game-changers," they're called.

Across the Middle East, there is a fundamental and near universal resistance (on a government and street level) to Israel’s permanence. Its manifestations include widespread anti-Israel incitement, the burgeoning popularity of Hezbollah and Hamas, and sham peace proposals.

Worse, the entity with whom Israel is expected to negotiate an end to the conflict, the Palestinian Authority (PA), daily delegitimizes Israel – through media incitement, lawfare and extreme negotiating positions. It should be clear, for those willing to look past sound-bytes, that for the PA, any accommodation with Israel is temporary.

In lieu of understanding these unfortunate realities, the New York Times (among others) has adopted a school of thought – an ideology – that sees both Israel and Arab regimes seeking an end to the conflict, but bogged down in a morass of fear, mistrust, and bad decisions.

In this alternate reality, and only in this alternate reality, “game-changers,” could work.

According to the Times, such moves include Netanyahu declaring “an end to settlement construction and an early return to substantive final status negotiations,” followed by Obama “challenging Arab leaders to respond”.

Nevermind that Israel has not built new settlements, nor outwardly expanded existing ones; that the previous Israeli government dismantled outposts and roadblocks; and had their offer of Palestinian statehood (with the farthest reaching concessions, according to reports) rebuffed by the unquestionably moderate PA; or that Arab regimes, on the rare occasion they’re urged to reach out to Israel, will respond, as they always have, that the Palestinian question must first be resolved.

Nevermind all this, since this disturbing history would sully hope.

When it comes to Israel's security concerns -- a prerequisite of any viable peace -- a typical Times editorial renders them as meaningless clichés, token references that go nowhere. For instance, citing the “administration’s list” for Israel, as verbalized by Joe Biden at the AIPAC conference, the Times includes a caveat with the demand that Israel grant Palestinians more responsibility for security: “to the extent that they (the Palestinians) combat extremists and dampen incitement against Israel.”

That's a good start, but nothing more is made of it. If it were, readers would know that the PA has folded anti-Israel terrorist groups in to its security services; that Fatah’s own Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades continue to function; that taking on Hamas in the West Bank is more about self-preservation, than about security for Israel; and that incitement against Israel (by the PA itself) has gotten worse. The rest of this editorial would then sound silly for getting tough on Israel.

Instead, “Israeli leaders’ responses (to Obama’s two-state intentions) have been unconvincing and insufficient.” Netanyahu’s recent statement on pursuing peace with the Palestinians “rings hollow” and he may be trying to “ensure talks with the Palestinians never get anywhere.”

Although Israel’s foreign minister has endorsed and even “obligated” Israel to the “Road Map” leading to a two-state solution and spoken frankly of the problems inherent in a rush to final-status talks, he and Netanyahu have “resisted and openly derided the two-state solution.”

Still, what most underscores in this piece the Times’ dopey and dogmatic view of the conflict is its contention that Arab-Israeli peace will be easier as both sides share a deep concern of a nuclear Iran. This view rests on two false assumptions: that an alliance between Israel and the Arab world is even needed to deter Iran; that such a strategic alliance, when played to its benefit, would convince the Arab world to accept Israel.

Avoiding difficult and obvious facts may be self-soothing, but it doesn't make for sound journalism. This latest editorial could be the most fitting tribute yet to the New York Times’ unenlightened view of the Arab-Israeli conflict.