The Times’ moral equivalency on Gilad Shalit

Besides the media constantly calling the ransoming of Gilad Shalit a “prisoner swap,” there have been many irritating moral equivalencies, but none more egregious than this snippet in the New York Times.

Both Israel and the divided Palestinian leadership — Fatah runs the West Bank while Hamas controls the Gaza Strip — were making elaborate preparations for the Tuesday handover, which will end five years in captivity for one Israeli soldier, Staff Sgt. Gilad Shalit; hundreds of the Palestinians have been held much longer.

Despicable. The reason they were in prison longer than Gilad Shalit was held captive illegally is because they all committed crimes, many of them murder, attempted murder, and accessory to murder. But the media blithely repeats the Palestinian narrative of comparing “prisoners.” Once again, Gilad Shalit was a hostage. And he was ransomed. Now, of course, the media are criticizing Israel for ransoming their son. The Times, again:

The deal is likely to strengthen Hamas within Palestinian politics, adding to the difficulties for President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah and efforts to revive the peace process with Israel. Egypt, a key broker of the deal, will likely gain, as will Turkey, a supporter of Hamas. Hamas may even move its headquarters to Egypt from the Syrian capital, Damascus, where President Bashar al-Assad is facing strong popular revolt. And if the prisoner exchange emboldens Hamas to carry out more actions against Israel, that would likely empower the hawkish right in Israel.

Note the despicable refusal to put the onus of terror attacks on Hamas, let alone the polite euphemism of “actions against Israel.” No, if Hamas attacks Israel again, it will make the hawks in Israel even more powerful—so it’s on Israel not to allow the “hawkish right” to be empowered if their sons and daughters are murdered or kidnapped.

And of course, there’s this editorial. Note how the Times manages to blame Netanyahu for both downsides. Not only is the Times projecting—on zero evidence—that Bibi will be less likely to negotiate now with Mahmoud Abbas, but they point out that by making a deal with Hamas, Abbas was weakened. It’s lose-lose for Israel in the Times. Color me unsurprised.

Now that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has compromised with Hamas, we fear that to prove his toughness he will be even less willing to make the necessary compromises to restart negotiations. And we fear that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, and his Fatah faction, who were cut out of the swap altogether, will be further weakened.

And then they cover their morally equivalent asses by adding a single qualifier to this next paragraph, so that they can claim that they didn’t mean Bibi never said he would negotiate. They only meant that he never really meant it.

One has to ask: If Mr. Netanyahu can negotiate with Hamas — which shoots rockets at Israel, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence and, on Tuesday, vowed to take even more hostages — why won’t he negotiate seriously with the Palestinian Authority, which Israel relies on to help keep the peace in the West Bank?

One has to ask: On what planet are the Times editorialists living? Abbas is the one who refuses to come to the table, time and time again. Abbas is the one who is constantly setting preconditions. Netanyahu has stated clearly on several occasions that he is willing to negotiate anywhere, anytime, without preconditions. The Palestinians refuse to negotiate until building stops in “settlements,” including the suburbs of Jerusalem that are going to remain in Israel’s hand in any deal, and both sides—and the New York Times editorial board—know this. But that doesn’t stop them from lying through their teeth about Bibi’s intent.

Mr. Netanyahu’s backers claim that his coalition is so fragile that he can’t make the compromises needed to help revive peace negotiations. But he was strong enough to go against the grief-stricken families of those Israelis killed by the Palestinian prisoners he just freed. “I know that the price is very heavy for you,” he wrote to them. Why can’t he make a similarly impassioned appeal for a settlement freeze for the sake of Israel’s security?

… As for Mr. Netanyahu, we saw on Tuesday that the problem is not that he can’t compromise and make tough choices. It’s that he won’t. That won’t make Israel safer.

They put the onus on Bibi to freeze settlements. They do not put the onus on the Palestinians to come to the table. And this ass-backwards view of Israel’s negotiations with the Palestinians is the reason why the world bashes Israel constantly. Israel apparently lives in the world through the looking glass, where up is down, war is peace, and wanting to negotiate unconditionally is being unwilling to negotiate.

Yeah, this is why I stopped reading the Times years ago.