The NYT's "White Man's Burden"?

1) "The (Now Silent) Guns of January," A30 (Editorial)
2) "Israel Slows Withdrawal From Gaza," A8, by Ethan Bronner
3) "Few Israelis Near Gaza Feel War Achieved Much," A8, by Ethan Bronner
4) "Debating the Blame for Reducing Much of a Village to Rubble," A8, by Sabrina Tavernise
5) "Tensions in the Mideast Reverberate in France," A20, by Katrin Bennhold

The Times coverage of Israel continues full force post-inauguration with five article on Israel and related topics. Of special note is a NYT editorial that continues to place almost sole responsibility for peace on Israel's shoulder.

*****
The (Now Silent) Guns of January

The most important piece of the day is the Times editorial on the conflict in Gaza and how the new President can address it.

Per usual, the Times declares the need for a diplomatic solution that creates a "durable peace." With Israeli elections upcoming on February 10, the NYT hopes "that they [Israelis] choose a leader who is truly committed to negotiating peace with the Palestinians." A "truly committed leader" is codeword for an Israeli leader that heedlessly dive into peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

It is amazing how the Times makes no such demands on the Palestinian leadership, continuing to place the onus of the conflict squarely on Israel's shoulders. From this article, one would assume that the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority is good-faith negotiating partner, even though the PA continues incitement against Israel and Jews, and refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, fostering the rejectionist illusion that Israel and its Jewish inhabitants will one day disappear.

And that's without saying anything about Hamas, which is avowedly committed to Israel's destruction. How can a "durable peace" be forged while Hamas continues to control Gaza and has no interest in moderating its view or engaging in negotiations for a peace agreement? The Times fails to have answers for these complex problems, assuming that if Israelis elect the proper leadership, peace is within ready reach.

For the NYT, the answer to this conflict comes with an "evenhanded" U.S. policy, which it always fails to define. Judging by the Times own words, such a solution seems to basically entail pressuring Israel into "difficult concessions," while never truly holding the Palestinians accountable for their rejectionist philosophy that permits the purposeful targeting of civilians.

Is the Times engaged in its own version of "The White Man's Burden"?

*****
Israel Slows Withdrawal From Gaza

Ethan Bronner summarizes the latest events in Gaza, declaring that the cease-fire "suffered its first violations." Despite writing that "Israeli troops twice came under fire, and eight mortar shells were shot at Israel," initiating an Israeli response, Bronner cannot get himself to write that these violations rest with Hamas.

The article comes with requisite condemnations from the UN as Ban Ki Moon visited Gaza and Sderot. "He said Israel had used excessive force in Gaza." And how does an army viably fight a terrorist force that will use its own population as a human shield blanket? No answers, simply reflexive condemnation.

At least Moon recognizes that Hamas' use of "rockets against civilians violated international law" but follows that up with the demand that "Israel should lift its border closing on Gaza, strangling its economy." This is comically juxtaposed a few lines down with the comments of a Hamas spokesman that declares at a 'victory rally' that "We [the Palestinian people] are aiming for the liberation of all of Palestine."

Why would Israel increase trade with Hamas, when it will only use this as a means to strengthen itself to destroy Israel? Economic growth will not moderate Gazans, as Hamas is not interested in building a viable society, but in 'liberating Palestine.'

******
Few Israelis Near Gaza Feel War Achieved Much

The title may be a bit misleading, implying that Israelis were against the war, when the article actually indicates "most Israelis are satisfied that action was taken." Many Israelis bordering Gaza, however are understandably dismayed because they believe (or know) that Hamas will renew hostilities with Israel, once again placing their lives in peril. As the Israelis quoted in this article indicate, they would have preferred that Israel removed Hamas from power, eliminating the source of the rocket fire.

It would befit the Times to understand that Israelis simply want to live in peace and quiet, and not under the shadow of Hamas' rocket threat. This is further demonstrated by the fact that Israel "opened a regional medical clinic for the people of Gaza in the huge new passenger terminal at the Erez border crossing."

*****
Debating the Blame for Reducing Much of a Village to Rubble

This poignant piece describes the destruction wrought in one Palestinian village during the course of Israel's military operations against Hamas. The reporter ambiguously writes that "the destruction was a hard fact, but how it happened was not, with Israelis and Gazans each offering their own divergent versions of events, alternate realities that have come to typify this war."

Israeli minister Isaac Herzog, currently in charge of humanitarian relief for Gaza, related that "Israel had not planned to enter the village, but that it was left with no choice when six Hamas fighters shot at its troops from a water cistern there. Soon after, a group of houses detonated at once, wired to explode as Israeli troops passed..."

The mayor of the village, Mr. Abu Ayadah disputes the Israeli account, admitting that "Hamas fighters would occasionally drive up in a car, fire a rocket and leave," but they could not have booby-trapped the entire village. He does not deny though that Hamas would commit such an act - "So suppose there’s a bomb in one house, but in many houses — no."

The the one thing, then, that comes clear from this article is that Hamas was clearly using the village as a military staging ground and that it would not be beyond the pale (what really is for Hamas?) for the terrorist organization to booby-trap civilian homes.

The suffering of the Palestinians in this article is tragic - even if some two-thirds of Gazans voted for Hamas. It's a shame that Hamas has no consideration for their well-being.

******
Tensions in the Mideast Reverberate in France

The last article, on Jewish-Muslim tensions in France as a result of the Gaza conflict, is comical in its attempt to create an equivalence between Jewish and Muslim responsibility for these tensions. In fact, they're not even mutual "tensions"as the reporter would like one to believe. The Jewish minority, numbering some 600,000, is intimidated and frequently physically targeted by French Muslim population, numbering some 5 million. Jewish attacks against Muslims is exceedingly rare to the point of non-existence in comparison to anti-Jewish Muslim attacks.

The reporter writes:

Since the Gaza war began on Dec. 27, firebombs have been thrown at four
synagogues in France, although the police say it is not certain that the
culprits were Muslims. A Jewish student was attacked by youths of Arab origin in
a Paris suburb, and two Muslim students were attacked outside their high school
by pro-Israel assailants. Both Muslim and Jewish families said there had been an
increase in intimidation and verbal abuse.

Yes, of course, one incident against Muslims is equivalent to the firebombing of synagogues. Have any mosques ever been a target of Jewish violence? According to "Richard Prasquier, the head of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions... at least 60 anti-Jewish acts had been committed since the fighting began, or five times the amount in a typical three-week period."

It is clear that a significant segment of France's Muslim population has an anti-Jewish problem, but this reporter isn't able to connect the obvious dots.

Instead, the reporter attempts to whitewash the anti-Jewish sentiment rife among French Muslims in the last sentence of the piece, quoting a Muslim who says that “The only way this issue will go away is if there is a proper and durable peace agreement.” I suppose that means France's Muslim population is truly moderate and peace-seeking when it comes to Israel.

This anti-Israel, pro-Hamas rally in Paris, involving the torching of cars and chanting of "Allahu Akbar," seems to belie that point.