Instransigence: a single use word

The Washington Post reports:

Mitchell, who in January boasted that a peace deal could be done within two years, said he hoped the indirect talks would lead to direct negotiations as soon as possible and encouraged the parties “to refrain from any statements or actions which may inflame tensions or prejudice the outcome of these talks.”

Just such a thing happened Monday when Israel announced construction of 112 new housing units in the West Bank settlement of Beitar Ilit. The administration had pushed hard — but unsuccessfully — last year for a complete freeze on settlements, and Israel’s new announcement came as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas was meeting with Mitchell.

Now if Beitar Illit will remain part of Israel, why would building 112 houses there “inflame tensions?” I would think that orchestrating riots and honoring a terrorist are more obvious statements of contempt for peace.

In a similar vein we see in a Washington Post editorial:

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has resisted direct negotiations partly out of a conviction that Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is intransigent. And Mr. Netanyahu regularly offers evidence that this is so. He recently appeared to rule out Israeli withdrawal from the Jordan Valley, which previous Israeli governments have conceded to a future Palestinian state, and he allowed new Jewish settlement construction to proceed in the West Bank despite the “freeze” he announced several months ago. Mr. Abbas, for his part, already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu’s predecessor.

The New York Times though, clarifies something:

Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supports two states but wants the Palestinian side to be demilitarized and to accept an Israeli military presence on its future eastern border to prevent the import of weapons and rockets that could be aimed at Israel’s population centers.

The Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley, then, is a precaution. After being burned time and again by the Palestinians after withdrawing from territory, Netanyahu talks about protecting his country from that happening again. That’s a sign of intransigence?

But more generally that paragraph is disturbing. To defend Abbas claims that Netanyahu is being “intransigent” is dishonest. The editorial itself acknowledges that Abbas “…already rejected a far-reaching peace offer from Mr. Netanyahu’s predecessor.” That, to me, is the definition of intransigence. Yet somehow the adjective, “intransigent” in its various forms somehow only describes Israeli leaders.

The Post’s editors can lament that Netanyahu isn’t as generous as his predecessors. But the reason there is no peace that Abbas and Arafat before him rejected generous offers. If they are demanding that Netanyahu accept deals that were previously rejected by the other side they are in fact rewarding intransigence, not advocating for peace.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.