The NYT and Washington Post both reported on the recent breach of the ceasefire by Hamas. Though both papers included the reporting in articles about PM Olmert’s political maneuverings the Times did a superior job. The Washington Post left out a significant detail in its reporter’s attempt to draw and equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians.
In an article focused on Ehud Olmert’s last minute political save the NYT reports on the recent attacks on southern Israel by Gaza based terrorists.
Also on Wednesday, Israel closed the Gaza border crossings for supplies in response to Palestinian rocket fire on Tuesday that was the first serious breach of a nearly week-old truce between Israel and Hamas, the Islamic group that controls Gaza. Islamic Jihad, a small extremist group, claimed responsibility for firing the rockets, describing the move as retaliation for an Israeli raid that killed one of its senior commanders in the West Bank, which is not covered by the cease-fire accord. But the closing was expected to be brief.
Maybe the rockets were the first “serious” breach of the ceasefire, but earlier there had been a mortar fired into Israel.
Regarding the rockets on Tuesday, which struck Sderot, an Israeli border town, and its environs, Israel has said it will hold Hamas responsible for all infractions of the truce, including those carried out by other groups.
Khalil al-Hayya, a Hamas leader in Gaza, said Wednesday that Hamas was committed to the truce but would not “police†the border with Israel or enforce the calm with rifles.
So what was the point? Hamas is essentially denying responsibility for the agreement it signed.
One of the hallmarks of a legitimate government is that it has a monopoly on the use of force. Hamas’s refusal even to try to exercise such a monopoly reveals that it is not a government but a gang.
The Washington Post’s Griff Witte engages in a bit of dissembling about the ceasefire.
Talks with the radical Islamist group Hamas, mediated by Egypt, have already borne fruit in the form of a six-month cease-fire in the Gaza Strip. That truce was rattled Tuesday, however, when the armed group Islamic Jihad fired three rockets from Gaza into southern Israel in response to an Israeli operation in the West Bank city of Nablus that left two of the group’s members dead.
In retaliation, Israel on Wednesday closed all commercial crossings into the coastal strip and would not say when they would reopen. Under the terms of the truce, Israel is supposed to gradually loosen the strict economic embargo it imposed a year ago, when Hamas toppled a unity government with the rival Fatah party and took control of the territory.
Hamas said Israel’s decision to close the crossings violated the terms of the truce. But the group also said it planned to continue to honor the week-old cease-fire, and by refraining from a military response, Israel indicated that it would, as well.
The truce wasn’t “rattled,” it was violated, or as Israbel Kershner of the NYT reported, “breached.” Note furthermore that in the third quoted paragraph how Witte frames the issue: Israel “violated” the truce but Hamas would “honor” the truce. Nothing about Hamas has said that it won’t stop smuggling or as reported elsewhere, denied any responsibility for enforcing the ceasefire.
Finally we come to this bit of pernicious equivalence.
The truce is controversial in Israel and Gaza, with hard-line critics on both sides arguing that now is not the time for quiet.
Retired Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, a former chief of the Israel Defense Forces, said that instead of holding its fire, Israel should be conducting targeted killings and medium-scale military operations so that, ultimately, Hamas “will cry for [a truce] without conditions.”
But Yaalon said he doubts the current cease-fire will last.
“It’s not a stabilized situation, and it’s not going to last for six months,” he said.
“Hard line critics on both sides?” So after he presents the view that both sides are honoring the truce, he quotes only an Israeli “hard-line” critic. But since Witte’s left out the Hamas statement about not enforcing the ceasefire, Gen. Ya’alon’s statement can be interpreted, I suppose, as that of a “hard-liner.” But if Witte had taken the time to report on Hamas’s denial of responsibility of enforcing the ceasefire, Ya’alon’s statement is a realistic assessment of the situation. If terror groups other than Hamas will be free to strike at Israel whenever they want, the ceasefire is not a “stabilized situation.”
I wonder if Deborah Howell is concerned.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
