Three years ago in advance of Palestinian elections, the Washington Post heralded the participation of Hamas, in “Pre-election turmoil“:
Already, too, democracy is showing its benefits. Faced with the possibility of defeat by Hamas, Fatah has been forced to overhaul the aging and corrupt cadre left behind by Yasser Arafat and install young reformers at the top of its legislative list. Their leader, the Israeli-imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, published a remarkable letter in Palestinian newspapers Friday apologizing for Fatah’s mistakes and asking voters for another chance. Hamas itself is showing some pragmatism: Its newly elected council members supported the election last week of a Christian woman as mayor of Ramallah, the most important West Bank town. A senior Israeli army official recently predicted that if Hamas did win the elections it would continue to curtail attacks on Israel.
(I pointed out back then the hollowness of these “benefits.”)
When Hamas won in Palestinian elections three years ago, the Washington Post hailed the result as presenting new “opportunities” in “Hamas’s Choice.”
THE VICTORY of Hamas in the Palestinian elections creates fresh opportunities as well as dangers in the Middle East. The Islamic fundamentalist movement will now come under extraordinary pressure to cease all acts of terrorism, help restore order in the turbulent Gaza Strip and moderate its rejection of Israel. The pressure will come not only from Western governments and aid donors but from its own constituents. Hamas’s leaders had hoped to use a minority position in the Palestinian legislature to exercise a veto over peace talks with Israel while avoiding disarmament and wider responsibility. As leader of the cabinet that will be formed under President Mahmoud Abbas, the Islamists will find their straddle of democracy and terrorism far more difficult to maintain.
The Post even gave Hamas honcho Mousa Abu-Marzook the space to opine, “What Hamas is seeking.”
We appeal to the American people’s sense of fairness to judge this conflict in light of the great thoughts, principles and ideals you hold dear in the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the democracy you have built. It is not unreasonable to expect America to practice abroad what it preaches at home. We can but sincerely hope that you use your honest judgment and the blessings of ascendancy God has given you to demand an end to the occupation. Meaningful democracy cannot flourish as long as an external force maintains the balance of power. It is the right of all people to pursue their own destiny.
So the election of Hamas and the subsequent disengagement from Gaza, gave Hamas the opportunity to rule territory, Gaza, and subsequently turned it into a source of terror against Israel. Anyone familiar with Hamas would have concluded that this was the likely path Hamas would take. If the Washington Post has regretted its promotion of Hamas or felt let down, its editors haven’t been that explicit. However what really bothers the Washington Post, is the result of the Israeli election as they let us know today in “Israel’s Step Backwards.”
ISRAEL’S ELECTION last week propelled the country back in time to a political era when the parliament was sharply divided between parties that favored or opposed a two-state settlement with Palestinians. As in the 1980s, the right has the upper hand: Likud party leader Binyamin Netanyahu appears to have the best chance to become prime minister, even though his party finished second behind the centrist Kadima. Americans who remember Mr. Netanyahu’s last stint as prime minister in the 1990s — and there are several in the Obama administration who were working on Mideast policy then — have to be concerned that he would repeat his strategy of seeking to delay or undermine all peace negotiations with the Palestinians. He might also press for Israeli or American military action against Iran, and he has promised to “topple” and “uproot” Hamas from the Gaza Strip.
As I pointed out the other day, Netanyahu was vilified for insisting that Arafat stick to his agreements. Apparently then the Post recognizes no obligations that the Palestinians have towards Israel (or even their own people). All that the Post requires for peace is Israeli acquiescence to international pressures to withdraw from ever more territory.
If the Post had published such a comparable editorial before the election of Hamas, it would have concluded,
“Hamas might also continue launching terror attacks against Israel.” In that case it would have been correct. Instead it presented terror as once of the choices before Hamas and expressed the vain hope that it would choose democracy.
Mr. Netanyahu has said that he hopes to form a broad government including Kadima and possibly even the left-wing Labor party, which finished fourth behind an ultranationalist ticket. That would mimic the Israeli governments of the 1980s, which paralyzed the peace process but not the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank. Kadima and Labor, which favor continued talks on a two-state deal with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, would be wise to stay out of a Netanyahu-led government.
Was the paralysis during the 1980’s really so bad? Israel made progress (by the Post’s reckoning) in the 1990’s and was rewarded with increasing terror. It’s also interesting that the Post abhors a Netanyahu government and yet dismisses the idea of having more leftist parties join the Likud. So does the Post really favor a right wing government in Israel? Finally, just remember that the Post welcomed the inclusion of Hamas in the Palestinians government but positively fears a centrist government run by Likud. It says a lot about how the editors of the Washington Post judge concepts such as “extreme” and “moderate.”
Having promised more active diplomacy in the Middle East, the Obama administration will have to grapple with how to advance its aims despite what could be fundamental disagreements with Israel’s new leaders. One way to do so is to push for the conclusion by the outgoing Israeli government of a cease-fire with Hamas. Egypt was reported last week to be close to brokering a deal that would promise an 18-month halt in hostilities, the freeing of a captive Israeli soldier as well as hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, and the opening of Gaza border crossings. Such a deal could forestall the renewed military attack on Gaza that Mr. Netanyahu has been hinting at. It might also lead to an agreement between Hamas and Mr. Abbas that would restore a single Palestinian government.
BTW, it doesn’t appear that the outgoing Israeli government is the snag to a new ceasefire. Why isn’t the Post recommending that the new administration push Hamas? Or are pressure and concessions only applicable to Israel. And of course, the Post recommends restoring the Palestinian government by including Hamas.
The largest obstacle to these deals lies not in Israel but in Syria, where the hard-line leadership of Hamas is based. President Obama has promised a restored U.S. dialogue with Syria; a request for cooperation on Hamas would be a useful opening test of Damascus’s intentions. The administration may also be able to cooperate with the new Israeli government on improving the economy and security forces of the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank.
So Israel gets pushed and the terrorists of Hamas (who are honored with op-eds in the Washington Post) should get a “request for cooperation.”
At the same time, the Obama administration should not adopt the Bush administration’s practice of accepting Israeli positions as givens. Whether or not the new government favors negotiations on a Palestinian state, Mr. Obama should challenge it to continue the process started by outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mr. Abbas. If Israel does not comply with its own commitments to dismantle illegal West Bank settlements, the administration should hold it accountable. Neither Israel nor the United States can afford another government that obstructs a Middle East peace.
Wow finally in the last sentence the Post gets it right! Neither Israel nor the United States can afford more Palestinian obstructionism! (I don’t think that’s what the Post meant.)
The Post mocks the Bush administration for “accepting Israeli positions as givens,” but in the 1990’s when the Clinton administration didn’t do that (especially when Netanyahu was Prime Minister – when it accepted the Palestinian positions as givens) that didn’t improve the prospects for peace. Looking at the end of the Clinton administration we can say that it did quite the opposite.
It’s ironic that the Post is more concerned with “illegal West Bank settlements” than with illegal terror. Or that it believes that only Israel ought to be held “accountable” but never the Palestinians. Or that only Israel needs to be “pushed” or “challenged.”
If the Oslo Accords had worked as advertised, Netanyahu would never have been elected in 1996 and Sharon never would have been elected in 2001. If the disengagement had worked Kadima would have won a decisive victory this year. This isn’t a matter of Israel moving to the right; it’s a matter of Israelis responding to terror threats. These have increased, not diminished since 1993. For the Post to pretend that Israel is the main reason that there’s no peace in the Middle East is ludicrous and counterfactual.
Last week I criticized a Washington Post report for equating Likud with Hamas. The Post’s editorial page goes further; it considers Likud worse than Hamas.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
