"In Praise of Diplomacy"
BR8, Sunday 2/15/09,
By Gershom Gorenberg
There are deficiencies in Carter’s new book, writes Gorenberg. There’s a selective and made-up history, which has Carter to thank for Sadat’s historic trip to Jerusalem. Gorenberg correctly calls him on this.
Gorenberg writes that Carter “too briefly” describes Hamas’ terror campaign against Israel. From this, one must assume Carter delved little, or not at all, into Hamas’ inflexible anti-Israel and anti-Semitic ideology, as well as the glorification of armed struggle that pervades Palestinian society. Gorenberg, not to mention Carter, misses that it’s not simply these violent acts, but the ideology fueling them.
Carter “has an easier time talking about Israeli obstacles to peace than Palestinian ones,” says Gorenberg. “Carter’s counsel lacks a couple of critical elements,” continues Gorenberg, who fails to mention what these are.
”Nonetheless,” contends Gorenberg, “it has much to recommend it.” Perhaps in an attempt to inform the reader why he recommends such a flawed work, Gorenberg states that “the curious thing about Carter’s history is that he can be wrong on the details and right on the conclusions.”
But it’s not just Carter’s conclusions on historical events, but his conclusions on the path to peacemaking with which Gorenberg agrees.
Conveying Carter’s take on Hamas, Gorenberg writes that without Hamas, there will be no agreement, “and with no agreement in sight, even moderate Palestinians are beginning to consider the one-state alternative”.
This trite and empty analysis reveals ignorance on two counts. First, an agreement will not be brought more into view with the inclusion of Hamas. That Hamas is so popular is a clear indication of how far we are from a peace agreement. Gorenberg’s theme for this review is never letting “a crisis go to waste”. Yet instead of making something of this crisis (Gaza) and counseling Palestinian society to seize this moment to reform and truly build a path of peace with Israel (while the destructive alternative is so plainly visible), Carter advocates a stronger push by Obama for negotiations, only this time with Hamas! Gorenberg assents.
Second, so-called moderate Palestinians have never abandoned Israel’s demise in the form of a “one-state solution,” hence their non-starter positions within a two-state framework [i.e. right of return; withdrawal to Green Line; the casualness with which they speak of slipping from two-states to one].
Not only does Gorenberg expose his naivety, but a chip on his shoulder regarding American Jewry:
The agreement with Egypt arguably improved Israel’s security as much as any other single event in its history. Yet a portion of American Jewry has never forgiven Carter for his success.
Has this “portion” of American Jewry never forgiven Carter for peace with Egypt, or for his problematic statements and positions towards Israel and Jews over the years?
That Israeli gestures and actions can moderate Palestinian rejection is a major tenet of Carter’s book. As Gorenberg is an author noted for his book on Israeli settlements, “The Accidental Empire," he was a fitting choice by the Times to legitimize a book about dismantling settlements being the difference between perpetual war and a lasting peace.
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Israeli Intransigence Blocking Cease-Fire with Hamas?
1) "Hamas Sees Ceasefire Within Days; Israel Demurs," A6, by Ethan Bronner
2) "The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry," A8 (World Briefing), by Marlise Simons
3) "Clinton Seeks a Shift on China," A11, by Mark Landler
*****
1) Hamas Sees Ceasefire Within Days; Israel Demurs
Bronner's phrasing in the article and title make it appear that Hamas is abundantly forthcoming when it comes to achieving an equitable ceasefire, while Israel remains intransigent.
It appears that Hamas is only forthcoming for a ceasefire on its own terms:
Additionally, Israel is looking for "guarantees that Hamas is not rearming through smuggling tunnels from Egypt or on the international arms market." It is unclear whether Egypt or Hamas will cooperate on this issue.
In the end, it seems that a ceasefire is not as readily achievable as the article indicates. Yes, Hamas is prepared for a ceasefire - but one that satisfies its wholly satisfies its own objectives. Where's the compromise?
2) The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry
This minuscule briefing informs the reader of continued (Fatah-led) Palestinian efforts to push for a Gaza inquiry on Israeli "war crimes" on Gaza. The article is devoid of content, making the article basically meaningless.
Interesting question: If Fatah is Israel's "peace partner," why is it pushing for a war crimes inquiry that would serve to delegitimize Israel? (Made all the more absurd given Hamas' execution of Fatah "collaborators" during Israel's military operations in Gaza)
2) "The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry," A8 (World Briefing), by Marlise Simons
3) "Clinton Seeks a Shift on China," A11, by Mark Landler
*****
1) Hamas Sees Ceasefire Within Days; Israel Demurs
Bronner's phrasing in the article and title make it appear that Hamas is abundantly forthcoming when it comes to achieving an equitable ceasefire, while Israel remains intransigent.
It appears that Hamas is only forthcoming for a ceasefire on its own terms:
Hamas officials said Friday that an announcement of an 18-month cease-fire with Israel was days away and would include a substantial opening of Gaza’s borders with Israel in exchange for an end to Hamas rocket attacks on Israeli southern communities.This is not in Israel's interest and no Israeli official is quoted in the article of supporting such a formulation. The Times notes that Israel wants "the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, seized and held by Hamas since the summer of 2006, but Hamas said that would happen only in a separate, if linked, deal that frees hundreds of Palestinians held in Israeli prisons." In this light, it doesn't appear that Hamas is forthcoming.
Additionally, Israel is looking for "guarantees that Hamas is not rearming through smuggling tunnels from Egypt or on the international arms market." It is unclear whether Egypt or Hamas will cooperate on this issue.
In the end, it seems that a ceasefire is not as readily achievable as the article indicates. Yes, Hamas is prepared for a ceasefire - but one that satisfies its wholly satisfies its own objectives. Where's the compromise?
2) The Netherlands: Palestinians Press for Gaza Inquiry
This minuscule briefing informs the reader of continued (Fatah-led) Palestinian efforts to push for a Gaza inquiry on Israeli "war crimes" on Gaza. The article is devoid of content, making the article basically meaningless.
Interesting question: If Fatah is Israel's "peace partner," why is it pushing for a war crimes inquiry that would serve to delegitimize Israel? (Made all the more absurd given Hamas' execution of Fatah "collaborators" during Israel's military operations in Gaza)
3) Clinton Seeks a Shift on China
In an article that deals primarily with Clinton's approach to East Asia, the reporter manages to sneak in some of her upcoming challenges in the Arab-Israeli realm.
The reporter writes that a potential Likud-led coalition "worries some in Washington," but does not provide any quotes to support this assertion.
Even more problematic, the piece includes the views of Martin Indyk, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, who believes that "the Obama administration should use this transitional period to begin a dialogue with Syria, which has indicated it is eager to talk to the United States and which is viewed as a central player in the effort to broker a peace agreement."
It is far from conclusive that Syria "has indicated it is eager to talk to the United States," particularly given its support of insurgents in Iraq and manipulative hand in Lebanon. The Times also regularly fails to explain why Syria would want peace.
Here are three main reasons why Syria does not want peace:
- Peace with Israel would not allow Syria to continue scapegoating Israel as a means to distract its population from the woes within their country
- Peace would most likely include an opening up to the West, which would threaten the iron-hand of the government. The Syrian government wants peace with the West but does not open itself to outside influence. The primary goal of President Assad is regime survival. Openness would endanger his minority government in which the Alawites (10% of the population) rule over the majority Sunni population (80%).
- Syria has indicated no willingness to distance its relationship from its patron Iran, or its proxies Hezbollah and Hamas. A peace agreement would require such a shift, but Syria is still dedicated to manipulating Lebanese politics through its ally Hezbollah.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Not Enough, Pope
- "Israel Opens the Gaza Border for 25,000 Carnations, Bound for Europe"; By Isabel Kershner; A6
- "Venezuela's Jews, Already Uneasy, Are Jolted by Attack"; By Simon Romero; A8
- "Pope, at Meeting With Jews, Rejects Denial of Holocaust"; By Rachel Donadio; A8
- "Israel: Kadima Retains One-Seat Lead in Elections"; World Briefing by Isabel Kershner; A10
- "Obama, Israel and the Arab Street"; Letters; A30
The heart of victimology is that others must do for you, as you sit still. It is, in a sense, a denial of one’s own agency. Such is the tone of Alaa Al Aswany's op-ed, in which he and other Egyptians are powerless subjects of Barack Hussein’s indifference and the strength of the American-Israeli relationship.
Although one of the letter-writers, Mohammed Ayoob, reinforces Al Aswany’s theme of victimization, the others - Alan Dershowitz, Jacquie Zaluda, and (Rabbi) Michael Stanger – emphasize Muslim agency. In their critique, they show Ayoob’s “Muslim public” the way forward.
In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez continues to try to exploit the recent anti-Semitic attack on a synagogue in Caracas for his own ambitions.
Conspiratorial and anti-Zionist statements by pro-Chavez journalist Hindu Anderi, Venezuela’s ambassador to Russia, and interior minister Tareck El Aissami are downright disturbing. More than anything, events in Venezuela demonstrate the connection between anti-Israelism and anti-Semitism.
News of anti-Semitism abounds this Friday, as Vatican officials say Pope Benedict XVI “was not aware of [Bishop Richard Williamson’s] stance on the Holocaust.” No reasonable person should believe this claim.
Reporter Rachel Donadio quotes two Jewish leaders, reacting to remarks by the Pope yesterday, in which he condemned Holocaust denial. Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee now considers “the matter closed;" whereas, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League says the Pope should re-excommunicate Williamson. Indeed, the Pope cannot condemn Holocaust denial and rehabilitate Williamson, and no Jewish leader, let alone a rabbi, should stand for such an action.
Lastly, Isabel Kershner (IK) authors a wholly un-newsworthy article about the shipment of 25,000 carnations from Gaza through Israel to Holland.
This seemingly straightforward report has two errors. First, it suggests that the shipment was a “gesture” toward the Palestinians, but elsewhere IK writes that the carnations went through “at the Dutch government’s request,” making it a gesture to Holland, not Gaza.
More egregiously, IK has a habit of stating what she calls Hamas' “demand for an opening of the Gaza border crossings” without offering what Israel demands – recognition – as a counterpoint.
To IK’s credit, she quotes IDF Major Peter Lerner, who concisely berates Hamas: “Basically it is a Palestinian decision – whether they want to send flowers or rockets."
News of anti-Semitism abounds this Friday, as Vatican officials say Pope Benedict XVI “was not aware of [Bishop Richard Williamson’s] stance on the Holocaust.” No reasonable person should believe this claim.
Reporter Rachel Donadio quotes two Jewish leaders, reacting to remarks by the Pope yesterday, in which he condemned Holocaust denial. Rabbi David Rosen of the American Jewish Committee now considers “the matter closed;" whereas, Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League says the Pope should re-excommunicate Williamson. Indeed, the Pope cannot condemn Holocaust denial and rehabilitate Williamson, and no Jewish leader, let alone a rabbi, should stand for such an action.
Lastly, Isabel Kershner (IK) authors a wholly un-newsworthy article about the shipment of 25,000 carnations from Gaza through Israel to Holland.
This seemingly straightforward report has two errors. First, it suggests that the shipment was a “gesture” toward the Palestinians, but elsewhere IK writes that the carnations went through “at the Dutch government’s request,” making it a gesture to Holland, not Gaza.
More egregiously, IK has a habit of stating what she calls Hamas' “demand for an opening of the Gaza border crossings” without offering what Israel demands – recognition – as a counterpoint.
To IK’s credit, she quotes IDF Major Peter Lerner, who concisely berates Hamas: “Basically it is a Palestinian decision – whether they want to send flowers or rockets."
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Solid Article on Israeli Elections Muddled by Two-State Tie-In
"In Israeli Vote, With Two Parties Nearly Tied, the Winner Is Gridlock"
A6, Thursday 2/12/09,
By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner
Bronner and Kershner report in a fair and straightforward way the immediate aftermath of the Israeli election – the political “wrangling and deal making” in the weeks ahead. There’s also reference to the growing calls within Israel of reforming its electoral system.
However, they somehow fashion Avigdor Lieberman a bigger two-state solution advocate than Netanyahu. “[Lieberman’s] willingness to create two states,” is contrasted with Netanyahu's wanting "to build an economic peace with the Palestinians, but has been vague about the need to uproot Israeli settlements in the West Bank or help the Palestinians create a state.”
Netanyahu has advocated building up a Palestinian economy, linked with Israel's. He's also stated that "the Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves, but none to threaten the security and existence of the State of Israel."
It’s unclear how this is being “vague about helping the Palestinians create a state," or at the very least more vague than Lieberman, who has spoken very little of the specifics of achieving Palestinian statehood.
Bronner and Kershner then offer the official Palestinian statement on the election, and in so doing unwittingly expose the Palestinian Authority's hard-line positions. Saeb Erakat “said Israel needed to send a clear message it was committed to the two state solution.” (emphasis mine)
Erakat demands that Israel “totally freeze all settlement activity” and “deal seriously with the Arab Peace Initiative”. Erakat lays a trap with this language. In large settlements that even the PA has agreed will remain part of Israel, new apartments cannot be built and roads cannot be paved? Basically, these communities' lifelines are held ransom by talks that can be dragged out indefinitely. This irrelevent demand just provides an excuse for pulling out of negotiations.
As for the Saudi Initiative, when Israel tries to deal seriously with it, it is told that the plan, which unrealistically demands full withdrawal to the 1949 cease-fire lines, is “take it or leave it.” The plan, as opposed to Israel's response, is not serious.
The problem here, though, is what’s not reported. Abbas’ international campaign to isolate and even sanction any Netanyahu or right-wing lead Israeli government, despite US intentions to work with any Israeli leader for an agreement, would’ve been most relevant here. Again, with this newspaper, such Palestinian intransigence is either whitewashed, or outright ignored.
A6, Thursday 2/12/09,
By Ethan Bronner and Isabel Kershner
Bronner and Kershner report in a fair and straightforward way the immediate aftermath of the Israeli election – the political “wrangling and deal making” in the weeks ahead. There’s also reference to the growing calls within Israel of reforming its electoral system.
However, they somehow fashion Avigdor Lieberman a bigger two-state solution advocate than Netanyahu. “[Lieberman’s] willingness to create two states,” is contrasted with Netanyahu's wanting "to build an economic peace with the Palestinians, but has been vague about the need to uproot Israeli settlements in the West Bank or help the Palestinians create a state.”
Netanyahu has advocated building up a Palestinian economy, linked with Israel's. He's also stated that "the Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves, but none to threaten the security and existence of the State of Israel."
It’s unclear how this is being “vague about helping the Palestinians create a state," or at the very least more vague than Lieberman, who has spoken very little of the specifics of achieving Palestinian statehood.
Bronner and Kershner then offer the official Palestinian statement on the election, and in so doing unwittingly expose the Palestinian Authority's hard-line positions. Saeb Erakat “said Israel needed to send a clear message it was committed to the two state solution.” (emphasis mine)
Erakat demands that Israel “totally freeze all settlement activity” and “deal seriously with the Arab Peace Initiative”. Erakat lays a trap with this language. In large settlements that even the PA has agreed will remain part of Israel, new apartments cannot be built and roads cannot be paved? Basically, these communities' lifelines are held ransom by talks that can be dragged out indefinitely. This irrelevent demand just provides an excuse for pulling out of negotiations.
As for the Saudi Initiative, when Israel tries to deal seriously with it, it is told that the plan, which unrealistically demands full withdrawal to the 1949 cease-fire lines, is “take it or leave it.” The plan, as opposed to Israel's response, is not serious.
The problem here, though, is what’s not reported. Abbas’ international campaign to isolate and even sanction any Netanyahu or right-wing lead Israeli government, despite US intentions to work with any Israeli leader for an agreement, would’ve been most relevant here. Again, with this newspaper, such Palestinian intransigence is either whitewashed, or outright ignored.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Whose War Crimes?
2) "Iran Offers 'Dialogue' with Respect' with U.S.," A5, by Nazili Fathi and David E. Sanger
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:
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:
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:
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.
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 SimonsIsraeli 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.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
PA Denies Palestinians Best Medical Care
- "Palestinians Stop Paying Israeli Hospitals for Gaza and West Bank Patients"; By Ethan Bronner; A8
- "Van Spirits Away Protestor in Egypt, Signaling Crackdown on Criticism Over Gaza"; By Michael Slackman; A8
- "Israeli Vote Brings Push For Release Of a Soldier"; By Isabel Kershner; A8
Ethan Bronner is not able to locate one Palesinian journalist, academic, or politician who will criticize this controversial decision.
Dr. Michael Weintraub at Hadassah hospital responded Jewishly to the PA’s decision: “Twenty percent of our patients are Palestinians, and we have one common enemy: cancer. The rest is immaterial. The question now is how to get those patients back into our care.”
In Egypt, the “state security” has arrested an activist who is calling upon the government to open the border-crossing between Rafah, which is in Egypt, and Gaza. The reporter, Michael Slackman, does not explain why the Egyptians refuse to open the border-crossing.
The activist has been detained, but no one outside of the government and the police know where he is. NYT is right to bring attention to the shady operation of the Egyptian police.
Finally, an article by Isabel Keshner discusses the upcoming elections and the prospect of Ehud Olmert arranging for the release of Gilad Shalit.
Unsurprisingly, she casts Likud candidate Benjamin Netanyahu in the least flattering light possible. In “a pitch to the right” Netanyahu visited “the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights…pledging not to hand the region back to Syria, from which Israel seized it in 1967.”
This pharsing actually casts the state of Israel, as a whole, in a poor light. A more fair rendering follows:
Netanyahu visited the Golan Heights, which Israel absorbed in a defensive war in 1967, and promised to fight for international recognition of Israel’s 1980 annexation of the territory.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Frighteningly Naive on Iran
1) "Mr. Obama and Iran," A22, Editorial
2) "Iran's China Option," A23, Column by Roger Cohen
1) Editorial
In both an editorial and a Roger Cohen column, the Times demonstrates that for all the apparent concern it expresses at the prospect of a nuclear Iran, the paper ignores Iran’s recent moves indicating an utter lack of interest in diplomacy.
The editorial lauds Obama’s “refreshing humility,” and his “constructive new tone” towards Iran. Yet Iran’s hostility towards the US has been more pronounced since this apparent change in tone.
Iran will now only agree to direct talks if the US pulls its forces out of the Middle East, abandons Israel as an ally, does nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
While the editorial praises the choice of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy since he “has a reputation for never giving up,” Iran has announced that it will refuse to deal with him. Perhaps that inconvenient truth wasn't known to the Times staff. Perhaps.
The editorial laments Bush’s failed policies. It’s “certain that the Bush administration never tried to find” the right mix of incentives or sanctions. Apparently the Times editorial staff sat in on the 28 direct meetings the administration held with the Iranians, as well as the strategy sessions held with European allies.
On one hand, the Times depicts Iranian nuclear capability as “frighteningly close,” and states “we’re not going to minimize the difficulties”. On the other hand, the paper never really elaborates on those difficulties, nor counsels an approach once diplomacy proves useless. The Times can only write vaguely of “carrots and sticks” and “persuasive diplomatic incentives,” while disavowing any military action, which it calls “a disastrous course”.
What the editorial fails to convey is the problem of Iran drawing out negotiations to give the regime more time to complete its program. If Obama’s diplomacy fails, will his proclamation about a nuclear Iran being “unacceptable” mean that military action [either from the US or from Israel] is inevitable? This question was worth asking.
The editorial need not advocate for military action or not talking with Iran, but it must convey, citing Iran’s recent rejection of Obama’s overtures, just how difficult diplomatic success will be and that there may turn out to be no ideal solution to this crisis.
******
2) Roger Cohen:
Before the upcoming Iranian election in June, Obama “should clarify that America wants an ‘honest broker’ role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to supplant Bush’s Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.”
Cohen just doesn’t get it. Nothing short of abandoning Israel and advocating its demise will placate the Iranian regime. Iranian threats toward Israel aren’t a result of a stalled peace process, but of Israel’s existence.
The sooner Cohen, and other commentators grasp this, the better informed will be the public.
2) "Iran's China Option," A23, Column by Roger Cohen
1) Editorial
In both an editorial and a Roger Cohen column, the Times demonstrates that for all the apparent concern it expresses at the prospect of a nuclear Iran, the paper ignores Iran’s recent moves indicating an utter lack of interest in diplomacy.
The editorial lauds Obama’s “refreshing humility,” and his “constructive new tone” towards Iran. Yet Iran’s hostility towards the US has been more pronounced since this apparent change in tone.
Iran will now only agree to direct talks if the US pulls its forces out of the Middle East, abandons Israel as an ally, does nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
While the editorial praises the choice of Dennis Ross as Iran envoy since he “has a reputation for never giving up,” Iran has announced that it will refuse to deal with him. Perhaps that inconvenient truth wasn't known to the Times staff. Perhaps.
The editorial laments Bush’s failed policies. It’s “certain that the Bush administration never tried to find” the right mix of incentives or sanctions. Apparently the Times editorial staff sat in on the 28 direct meetings the administration held with the Iranians, as well as the strategy sessions held with European allies.
On one hand, the Times depicts Iranian nuclear capability as “frighteningly close,” and states “we’re not going to minimize the difficulties”. On the other hand, the paper never really elaborates on those difficulties, nor counsels an approach once diplomacy proves useless. The Times can only write vaguely of “carrots and sticks” and “persuasive diplomatic incentives,” while disavowing any military action, which it calls “a disastrous course”.
What the editorial fails to convey is the problem of Iran drawing out negotiations to give the regime more time to complete its program. If Obama’s diplomacy fails, will his proclamation about a nuclear Iran being “unacceptable” mean that military action [either from the US or from Israel] is inevitable? This question was worth asking.
The editorial need not advocate for military action or not talking with Iran, but it must convey, citing Iran’s recent rejection of Obama’s overtures, just how difficult diplomatic success will be and that there may turn out to be no ideal solution to this crisis.
******
2) Roger Cohen:
Before the upcoming Iranian election in June, Obama “should clarify that America wants an ‘honest broker’ role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to supplant Bush’s Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy.”
Cohen just doesn’t get it. Nothing short of abandoning Israel and advocating its demise will placate the Iranian regime. Iranian threats toward Israel aren’t a result of a stalled peace process, but of Israel’s existence.
The sooner Cohen, and other commentators grasp this, the better informed will be the public.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
