Disputed Territory

"Desert's Sand and Rocks Become Precious Resources in West Bank Dispute"; By Ethan Bronner; A5

In what is intended to be an embarrassing expose of Israeli administration of the Jordan River's west bank, some positive elements come through.

"The land of the West Bank is, of course, disputed," reports Ethan Bronner. The casual manner in which he makes his remark is, at first, surprising. Nothing that NYT has reported for as long as I have read it suggests that the Jordan's west bank is anything but "occupied territory." 

Describing the territory as "disputed" gives greater credence to Israel's position than does the designation "occupied."

Further deviating from standard NYT reporting, Bronner writes, "Many Israeli experts say it is wrong to consider the West Bank a classically occupied territory." The use of the word "disputed" compounded by the opinion of "many Israeli experts" represents a potential turn of events in NYT's reporting. Whether these alterations are a blip remains to be seen.  

Nonetheless, the article proceeds in all other regards as intended, replete with propagandistic rejoinders by Palestinians about Israel, its intentions and its character. 

• A businessman in Ramallah says, "It is an example of the way in which economic interests in Israel are perpetuating the occupation."
• Hassan Abu-Libdeh, special adviser to Palestinian PM Salam Fayyad, states, "We view it as another aggression. This is just another example of Israeli businesses thriving at the cost of the Palestinian economy." 

Most reliably, quoted Palestinians characterize Israel as an exploiter and an aggressor. When a population is indoctrinated with crude stereotypes through television, radio, and newspapers, such descriptions will be readily forthcoming. 

The worst part of the article, however, is from Bronner himself. 

"Talk of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza has dimmed since the Palestinian leadership fractured when Hamas took over Gaza and since the right won in the Israeli elections." 

Here, readers confront a classic case of equivalence. In an effort to be fair, Bronner tries to hold Palestinians and Israelis accountable for the failure to create a Palestinian state. "The Palestinian leadership fractured" and "the right won in the Israeli elections." As a result, there is no Palestinian state. 

But there is an offense here. The Israeli public, through the democratic process in an open society with a free press and freedom of speech, decided to bring the right to power. Now, one can personally disagree with the opinion of the majority of Israelis, but one still has to respect the fact that the will of the majority, uncoerced, reached a conclusion by the best means that human beings currently have available - representative democracy. 

On the other hand, a group of anti-semitic terrorists - Hamas - intimidated a population and orchestrated a coup-purge to oust its opposition. 

To suggest that these factors have equal weight in contributing to the non-existence of a Palestinian state is shameful.