I know, I know, there've been plenty of diaries on the crisis in Gaza these past few days, and the present diary does not intend to address that crisis, at least not directly. That's out of my league, I'll leave it to those with greater idealism and fortitude than myself to square the circle of violence into which that part of the world has descended for over 50 years and counting.
Instead of journalizing on the conflict itself, I intend to engage in some "comparative editorial analysis" relative to that conflict. Because quite frankly, whatever your point of view on the subject, you have to admit that today's editorial in the Times was one of the most juvenile 500 words ever posted on the subject in a putatively respected institution of high journalism. Contrasted with the lead editorial in tomorrow's edition of Le Monde (translation below the fold)...
...the NY Times editorial board come off as the teenager complaining "mama, little Tommy is hitting me". If it were up to thinkers like those animating the editorial pages of the Times, it's safe to say the conflict has another 50 years or more ahead of it.
The Times come right out of the gates with the "he started it" routine:
The Palestinians who futilely threw up sand berms on Gaza's main roads to deflect Israeli troop movements were building their defenses in the wrong direction. The responsibility for this latest escalation rests squarely with Hamas, whose military wing tunneled into Israel on Sunday, killed two Israeli soldiers and kidnapped another. This was a follow-up to a declaration earlier this month by Hamas's political leadership that the group's 16-month intermittent cease-fire would no longer be observed.
Well a big duh here. Of course Hamas "started" this, they even gave warning they were going to. Shorter New York Times: "Mom, he's hitting me"!
(It has also not been widely noted in connection to coverage of this crisis that Israeli troops entered Gaza the day before and arrested two militants.)
Under the circumstances, an Israeli military response was inevitable. It should also be as restrained as possible. Israel does not seem to want to reoccupy Gaza, but its reported detention of several cabinet ministers in the West Bank is unsettling. Bitterness and distrust on both sides are sure to increase, and the already dim prospects for a return to peace negotiations will diminish even further.
Double duh. But Israel's reponse wasn't limited to that, was it?
Ironically, Hamas has chosen this bleak moment to finally endorse a document that implicitly recognizes Israel within its pre-1967 borders. In a different context that would represent progress. But in a week in which Hamas's military wing has crossed those very borders, it is hard to draw much encouragement.
This is absolutely true. So too is it true that the IDF crosses those very borders to pre-emptively strike at Hamas when they see fit. They also do so to punish Hamas for home-made missile attacks on Israel. And many times they simply
go after militants they deem a threat, pissing off even the Bush administration.
Obviously Hamas has much blood on its hands in atrocities to which I could easily also link. But, as Amnesty International points out, Israel and the IDF are not blameless in all this, regularly engaging in counterproductive punitive actions with limited military value but much value in further alienating an already quite hostile population in the occupied territories:
The military operations we have investigated appear to be carried out not for military purposes but instead to harass, humiliate, intimidate and harm the Palestinian population. Either the Israeli army is extremely ill-disciplined or it has been ordered to carry out acts which violate the laws of war (David Holley, Military Expert and Amnesty International delegate)
But the NY Times views these events through manichean lenses which we rightfully criticize the Bush administration and the Right generally for using.
The renewed presence of Israeli forces in Gaza may give a short-term boost to Hamas's local popularity.
Short-term? Sounds pretty optimistic to me.
But once the immediate adrenaline rush wears off, the Palestinians who elected Hamas, and the Arab nations on which it now depends for financial survival, need to survey the wreckage and draw the obvious conclusions.
Sounds like one of those famous Tom Friedmanesque "three month" predictions we've been hearing for three years. Gaza is already one of the most, if not most, hideous places to endure life on this earth, where penury, isolation, hardship and violence are simply the way life is, and it's hard to see how withholding all but the most basic humanitarian aid will make things worse for the average Palestinian living there. Good luck with that, though, New York Times, though in truth, your predictive record both in Irak and in Palestine leaves something to be desired.
When Hamas was only an opposition movement, its provocative behavior was a major impediment to peace. As a governing party, it is far worse.
Contrary to the hopes of many outsiders, five months in government has failed to educate Hamas to the reality of the world the Palestinians live in. Hamas has merely assumed the political privileges of power without accepting the minimal responsibilities that go with it.
If things go on like this, Palestinians can look forward to endless rounds of reckless Hamas provocations and inexorable Israeli responses. That is why things must not be allowed to go on like this. It is not just Israel that needs to be delivering that message to Hamas.
Hopefully, the New York Times editorial board can get past the "He Started It" mentality and realize that this crisis is a disaster not just for Palestinians living under Hamas misrule, but also a disaster for Israel and whatever hope it had for peace with the Palestinian state and, by extension, with its neighbors to the north and north-east. It'd also be nice if the New York Times could put some context around why the Israeli government is reacting with such disproportionate force.
It is only in seeing the political realities on the ground, which involve looking past the blame game, "he started it" mentality, unfortunately common among Americans, and exhibited in spade by the New York Times, that we have any hope of getting peace back on the road in the Middle East which, as it turns out, really still starts in Jerusalem.
Now, if you really want to get past the blame game and see some adult commentary on the subject, please refer to Le Monde's editorial lead in tomorrow's edition:
Edito du Monde
Périlleux engrenage
A destructive cycle of violence has resumed in the Palestinian territories following the kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. After having given the Palestinians 48 short hours to unconditionally liberate that soldier, Israel has decided to embark on a campaign ranging further than that called for by the conflict itself, and which respond to a number of domestic considerations for the Israeli government.
Neither Israeli PM Ehud Olmert nor his Defense Minister Amir Peretz have military leadership bona fides, and accordingly wish to prove they strong enough to act forcefully. Upping the ante for the pair and underlining the importance for them to achieve results, Israel has been enduring for weeks a steady rain of home-made Palestinian rockets, which with each attack underline the fact that the fate of Gaza, evacuated in September 2005, and that of the West Bank, still occupied by Israel, are inseparable.
What is at stake is made all the more critical by the fact that the jury is still out on the Gaza retreat, a decision taken and executed by a leader of much more military prestige than present leadership. It contributed in no small part to the victory of the Hamas Islamists in January legislative elections by proving that violence pays better than diplomacy. It hasn't improved the security situation for Israeli border towns either, far from it. On top of this we might add the continuing deterioration of a formerly occupied territory cut off from the rest of the world as it had always been.
Mr. Olmert confronts the slow-motion train wreck which is Gaza just at the moment he wishes to proceed to similar pull-backs in the West Bank, and salvage the possibility of negotiations, difficult under any circumstance, with an interlocutor, Mahmoud Abbas, in whose abilities to carry out agreed upon policies he has little confidence.
His muscular remedy could prove to be worse than the poison it is intended to combat. Mr. Olmert can certainly count upon either the support or understanding of an international community which has grown tired of Palestinian behavior and which hardly reacts to the near-daily deaths which occur there anymore. Getting rid of Hamas, a goal that the Israelis share with the US and, by default, the Europeans, will not be an easy feat given the deep roots that movement has put down in Palestinian society.
This goal is even more unfortunate today in that it crashes headlong into the political agreement which has recently been concluded between Hamas and the Palestinian nationalists of Fatah. Know as the "Prisoner's Plan" for having been drawn up by detainees in Israel, principally by the charismatic Marouane Barghouti, this accord entails implicit recognition of Israel. It is of course still far from the rigid conditions imposed on Hamas by the West, but it all the same represents real progress. Let's hope the campaign underway in Gaza doesn't ruin it.
Well lookee here, some nuance, some explanation of why Israel's reaction has been so harsh, far more than lipservice to the hope that the "Prisoner's Plan" represented, a warning that overreaction is counterproductive, mindfulness of what is at stake. And above all, no "he started it" childishness.
If only the adults were in charge at the New York Times.