The Washington Post reported on the murders of two Israeli policemen the other night.
Israeli police spokesman Mickey Rosenfeld said the shooting was being treated as a “nationalistic” attack, the phrase Israeli police occasionally use for political violence carried out by Palestinians. He said that the two officers were shot “at close range” while on patrol near the Israeli settlement of Massua. The small Jewish enclave is in an agricultural area of the Jordan Valley, north of the city of Jericho and near the Jordanian border.
The New York Times adds a detail.
Earlier Sunday, the Israeli military opened the Beit Iba checkpoint, northwest of Nablus, for the first time in eight years. Dozens of checkpoints were erected throughout the West Bank after the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada in 2000.
The military said in a statement that the Beit Iba crossing was being dismantled as part of “good-will measures authorized by the minister of defense, and as a result of the significant decrease in terror attacks originating from Nablus.â€
In contrast the Washington Post only mentioned that checkpoints are the source of friction, with no suggestion that they actually may help stop terrorism.
Both articles failed to mention that it was Fatah – the moderate Palestinian faction – that took credit for the murders. Both Elder of Ziyon and Israel Matzav had that crucail information.
The Post also covered the current reconciliation talks between Fatah and Hamas.
The divided government of the Palestinians has been a key stumbling point in the effort to resume peace talks with Israel. Fatah, which leads the Palestinian Authority, and Hamas reportedly took a step toward resolving the impasse Sunday. Wire services reported from Cairo that the rival factions had agreed to hold presidential and legislative elections on Jan. 25 of next year.
Note that the Post report makes it sound like including Hamas makes peace more likely. The Post hasn’t reported on Israel’s coalition negotiations, but I can’t imagine it would differ much from what was reported in the NY Times.
According to the Times:
Israel’s prime minister-designate, Benjamin Netanyahu, forged ahead on Monday with negotiations toward a probable narrow, hawkish government after his conservative Likud Party initialed its first coalition agreement with the nationalist Yisrael Beitenu Party led by Avigdor Lieberman.
If finalized, the agreement, reached late Sunday, could make Mr. Lieberman, an often indelicate and outspoken politician whose threatening language aimed at Arabs arouses suspicion and some trepidation abroad, the next foreign minister.
So even though Lieberman apparently abandoned his loyalty pledge platform he’s described in negative terms. (The headline refers to him as “far-right.”) And Netanyahu’s success in forming a government is presented as an obstacle to peace. There’s no consideration as to whether an agreement over Shalit will lead to peace, just that any agreement, seemingly would be good because it’s an agreement.
Taken together we see a few things:
1) Fatah’s involvement in terror is ignored.
2) Hamas’s participation in government, despite being a terrorist organization, is portrayed as essential to peace.
3) Binyamin Netanyahu becoming Prime Minister will somehow hurt the cause of peace.
4) Netanyahu’s premiership is exacerbated by his bringing Yisrael Beiteinu on board.
The cognitive dissonance that emerges from this is incredible.
In these cases, it appears that extremism in the promotion of a Palestinian state is no vice.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
