The New York Times today reports Killing of Israeli Settlers Rattles Leaders.
First of all, they were not settlers, they were people. When terror attacks claim the lives of Jews living in Judea and Samaria, the Times can’t keep its politics out of the reporting. I noticed this too, after the massacre of the Hatuel family. The Washington Post acknowledges the humanity of the victims, calling them Israelis.
I find this more than a little curious:
The Palestinian Authority also condemned the attacks, which occurred just before its president, Mahmoud Abbas, met with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. A Palestinian spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudeineh, said the attack by Hamas, the authority’s rival, underlined “the need to proceed quickly toward a just and lasting peace agreement,†which he said would “put an end to these acts.â€
What is Rudeineh saying? Is that a “condemnation”?
Or is it simply another way of stating Ali Abuminah’s disgusting tweet? Isn’t he saying that unless agrees to Palestinian terms, Israel can expect a continuation of terror?
(Elder of Ziyon notes Fayyad’s self serving “condemnation.”)
The Times continues:
Even before the attack, settlements were looming as a potential deal-breaker in the peace process. Mr. Netanyahu has steadfastly refused to commit to extending a partial moratorium on construction in the West Bank, which expires Sept. 26, while Mr. Abbas has said it will be very hard to keep talking if construction resumes. Mr. Netanyahu has not struck any private deals with President Obama or anyone else on the moratorium, American and Israeli officials said.
Compare that with this sentence towards the end:
The stop-and-go Israeli-Palestinian peace process has often taken place in the shadow of bloody attacks.
So the peaceful building of Jewish communities (in places where the Palestinians, (admittedly) don’t want them is considered a “dealbreaker.” However terrorism only casts a “shadow” on the peace process?
This is the problem with cbm’s. Actions that Israel is deemed obligated to take, take on the force of a commitment. Or, more precisely, the failure for Israel to do so, is regarded as an unforgivable breach in the peace process. Whereas when the Palestinians regularly fail in something basic to peace – like stopping terror or incitement – it’s treated like a nuisance, sometimes barely worth mentioning.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
