The New York Times is happy with the ceasefire between Israel and Hamas. And of course the Times draws the wrong lessons.
The Israelis have tough decisions ahead, starting with their vote next month for a new prime minister. We hope that they choose a leader who is truly committed to negotiating peace with the Palestinians. That will require some very difficult concessions. But it is the only way to guarantee their country’s lasting security.
Israel did make a very difficult concession for peace. It withdrew from Gaza. Many of its citizens who were expelled to make that possible have not been made whole. But worse, the withdrawal from Gaza made the nightmare of Katyushas from Gaza a reality.
So what should President Obama do?
The cease-fire gives President Obama some breathing room to consider how the Gaza war affects prospects for a new peace initiative — but not a lot. The new president has said he will work for a peace deal from Day 1 and we hope he means it.
It will require a commitment to be more evenhanded, creative and energetic in encouraging Israelis and Palestinians toward peace. It could also benefit from a diverse American negotiating team with considerable expertise in the Arab and Islamic world.
Towards that end, President Obama seems likely to appoint Senator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy. What’s Mitchell’s record?
Just before Mr. Clinton left office, in late 2000, he asked Mr. Mitchell to prepare a report on steps necessary to end newly erupted violence between Israelis and Palestinians, in what became known as the second intifada. The report, which came out the following year, recommended a freeze on new Israeli settlements on Palestinian land and dismantling the Palestinian terror infrastructure. Neither has been achieved.
In response to Arafat’s “Aqsa intifada” MItchell recommended that Israel stop building settlements. Actually the second part – the dismantling of the Palestinian terror infrastructure – was achieved in Judea and Samaria. But it was done by Israel. Through force of arms. I now that the Times does not believe that the military can defeat terrorism, but Israel did. By declaring a ceasefire, Israel might have missed a chance to destroy Hamas.
There’s a new president and the Times wants him to go back to the Middle East and attempt to do what has always failed in the past. What’s needed is not more American involvement, but a change of heart in the Arab world, and among the Palestinians in particular.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
The world is already talking about huge amounts of money for the Gazans, more realistically for Hamas to embezzle. If anybody actually wants peace without a bloodbath they should cut the Palis off completely. All the Palis. No more welfare from the rest of the world, especially from the US, the patsy Euros, and Israel. Make the Palis work for their living, not exist on a perpetual dole from civilized people. If they have to work or starve they’ll have to work and not have time or inclination for terrorism. Terrorism gets in the way of business, after all.
Of course the Arabs and Iranians might step in and replace the welfare from the rest of the world, thus enabling continued terrorism. But the arabs are notoriously chintzy with their money, and hold the Palis in contempt besides. I doubt there would be much forthcoming from such selfless, generous sources of funding as the Wahhabist Entity. And Iran is suffering its own financial problems. Absent $100 a barrel oil they probably can’t afford to subsidize Hamas in the style to which it wishes to become accustomed.
It might not work, but I think it’s the best chance for peace with a minimum of bloodshed. Hamas and the other Pali terror groups, of course, will not let the process be bloodless.
Note how for the Israel-hating media, e.g., the NYT, Time Magazine, etc, it is always Israel that must make “concessions” for peace. Never the Palestinians; oh no, that would be just too much to ask. After all, they are the perpetual underdog, the victims, the aggrieved party in this conflict. It is simply unfathomable to expect that the Arabs might have to compromise on some of their demands to achieve a lasting peace.
Also, I am fed up to the teeth with the notion that the US must be “evenhanded” in the conflict. For years, America and its sole democratic ally in the Middle East faced a hostile and intransigent alliance of Arab dictatorships and Soviet military might. Today, outside of the UAE and perhaps Kuwait, most of the Arab countries remain backwater slums — a noxious brew of official repression, human rights violations, misogyny, and Islamic social retardation. The Arab states, the EU, and much of South America are aligned against Israel. Why should the US feel compelled to be “evenhanded”?