Adrift on the editorial page

In Adrift in the Middle East the editors of the NY Times argue:

Israel marked Ms. Rice’s visit by agreeing to remove 50 of its roadblocks restricting travel in the West Bank. That leaves 530, roughly the same number as at the start of 2007. Any goodwill was erased when, hours after she departed, Israel announced its intention to build 800 new homes for Jewish families in the West Bank. Mr. Abbas promised more energetic efforts against terrorism — a promise he has made before — and agreed to end his monthlong boycott of meetings with Mr. Olmert.

Of course the editors didn’t note that along with the removal of the checkpoints came a return of terror attempts. When the very basic premise of “peace” is undermined as it has been consistently over the past 15 years, I find it hard to get exercised about Israel building homes for Israelis. Let’s see a stop to incitement, results in fighting terror and an end to endemic corruption on the part of the PA and then we can talk about what Israel ought and ought not do.

Just coming back to the table will not matter much unless Washington starts to push in earnest for the compromises that are the only basis for an agreement. President Bill Clinton first proposed the outline in 2000: a secure Israel and an economically viable Palestinian state, divided by roughly the June 1967 borders, and including reasonable compromises over Jerusalem.

And that agreement failed to stem the violence that was then orchestrated by Yasser Arafat. And despite the words “secure Israel” I have little confidence that Israel would be secure under those terms. Nor do I see any compromise on Jerusalem as being reasonable.

At the end the editors put its recent reporting on Hamas incitement to use:

They, as well as Washington, would also have to deal with the disruptive reality of Hamas, which broadcasts anti-Semitic propaganda and encourages deadly rocket fire into Israeli towns. The essential first step is to encourage efforts by Egypt and other Arab nations to press Hamas toward a complete cease-fire.If that can be achieved, the United States and Israel should start exploring the possibilities of talking directly with Hamas, though not in a way that excludes the far more statesmanlike Mr. Abbas.

Doing so does not imply approval of Hamas’s past methods or future goals. It does acknowledge that Hamas has a strong constituency — and a lasting peace would have to include these Palestinians as well.

Talking to Hamas gives leverage to Hamas, which effectively legitimizes its “past methods and future goals.” It happened with Fatah, which earned the prize of peace talks despite never changing its underlying commitment to terrorism or destruction of Israel.

Yes Hamas has a strong constituency. But that needs to change before there can be peace. Showing that there’s no penalty to be paid for advocating terror will only strengthen those who hold those views.

Don’t talk to Hamas. Don’t stop building. Stop terror. Then you will have peace.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.