No nearer the destination

The New York Times offers its advice about what to in the Middle East, in “Slipping Away”

For the first time, an Israeli leader and a Palestinian leader seem genuinely committed to peace. They set a deadline for a deal by year’s end. Yet the likelihood of achieving the two-state solution they have embraced diminishes with every rocket lobbed into Israel from Hamas-controlled Gaza and with every Israeli military strike or squeeze on civilian life in Gaza.

For the first time? I’m assuming that the Times means that both are committed to peace. Certainly, Yitzchak Rabin, Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak were committed to peace. And certainly Binyamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon did more to promote the peace process than anyone of the Palestinian side. (Though I doubt the Times would agree to the latter point.)

Of course the end of the paragraph is troubling. Israel’s civilians are being attacked and the Times is implying that Israel 1) not strike back militarily and not even 2) take non-military actions to defend its citizens and territories.

Does the Times then believe that a country under attack ought to allow its citizens to remain targets and not make any effort to defend its citizens? Or is this a demand it would only make on Israel?

The political and security situation is growing more desperate. Since last Wednesday, at least 100 Palestinians and 3 Israelis have been killed. On Sunday, the violence spilled over to the West Bank, as Palestinians there protested Israeli attacks on Gaza. A spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, said contacts with Israel would be temporarily suspended. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has rightly decided to go forward with a visit to the region this week. If she is to salvage the United States-led peace talks, she must push urgently for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. And she must press key Arab states to do a lot more to support Mr. Abbas and to pressure Hamas to halt the rocket attacks.

Abbas, of course, has condemned Israel for defending its citizens. He’s also done more than that, effectively repudiating the premise of the peace process. The reporter for the Times, Steven Erlanger, noted that Abbas was reserving “armed conflict” as an option. There’s no reason that his editors wouldn’t be aware of that outrageous remark.

But why is the suspension of the peace talks so catastrophic? Clearly Hamas didn’t much care about the talks and was targeting Israelis regardless. And why is the Times arguing for more support for Abbas, when Abbas’s sympathies are clearly with Hamas? That’s a much bigger problem than the lack of talks.

The violence is making it even harder for Mr. Abbas and Israel’s prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to negotiate the core issues. Right-wing members of Mr. Olmert’s government have threatened to bring down his coalition if he attempts to negotiate the sacrosanct issue of Jerusalem. Many Israelis who do support negotiations look at Gaza — from which Israeli forces withdrew in 2005 — and legitimately ask how Israel can surrender control of the West Bank under current conditions. Mr. Abbas’s security forces are weak and show little interest in, or capability of, disarming and detaining militants there.

Damn those “right wing members” of the Israeli government. If not for them, what? However, I can’t argue with the latter part of the paragraph. Why don’t the editors of the Times give it more importance? Abbas’s forces have no interest in disarming terrorists. Neither does Abbas. All the talks in the world won’t change that. And it’s more than just Israelis who can “legitimately” ask how Israel can surrender any more land given 1) Israel’s experience in withdrawing from Lebanon and Gaza and 2) the lack of commitment even the “moderate” Fatah has shown towards peace.

Israel must protect its people, but a sustained ground assault on Gaza could ensnare the army indefinitely. Mounting civilian casualties from Israeli strikes, and an Israeli embargo that has deepened the suffering in Gaza, only add to the desperation and Hamas’s popular support.

“Israel must protect its people” is directly contradicted by the rest of the paragraph. Elder of Ziyon notes that Gaza schools are expected to be open today showing that Israel’s attacks, while “sustained” have been limited. Nor do I believe that the Israeli embargo is the main motivation that feeds “Hamas’s popular support.” It’s Hamas’s goal of destroying Israel that makes it popular.

Egypt has sought to broker a possible cease-fire. Ms. Rice also must press Egypt to get serious about increasing military cooperation with Israel and developing a plan to stop Hamas from smuggling weapons and supplies into Gaza. Other Arab states, like Saudi Arabia, which for years urged President Bush to get involved, and Qatar, which provides some Hamas funding, also need to exert their influence. We have been told again and again that Ms. Rice considers a peace agreement her legacy. Time, and good will, is running out.

Why would Egypt start now? Egypt despite its “moderate” reputation has done all it can to undermine the peace process in recent years and paid no diplomatic price. In the end what the Times fails to understand is that while it may want peace, the Arab states it’s exhorting want Israeli withdrawals. If they get those withdrawals, then they might deign to make peace with Israel. (Might, but probably will just make more demands.)

What’s lacking is a change of heart in the Arab world. And no amount of good will from the Times or from Secretary Rice will change that.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.