Having done all they can to ensure the election of their preferred here, the editors of the Washington Post turn their attention to the next election, Israel’s in A Middle East Vote.
Let’s skip to the end:
Thanks to the construction of a fence along the West Bank border and a cease-fire deal with Hamas, Israel has been more peaceful in recent months than it has been in years. That favors right-wing leader Binyamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister. It is likely that he would seek to put off a settlement with Palestinians indefinitely. Mr. Netanyahu is seen as inflexible and untrustworthy by many in Washington; his election could spell a fractious period in Israeli-U.S. relations.
Israel is quiet and that is a bad thing because it might bring Binyamin Netanyahu to power. Now, I’m not at all confident of this. After all, Hamas agreed to a ceasefire so it could build its fortifications. When the ceasefire ceases being advantageous. And of course the Post doesn’t really acknowledge that ceasefire is broken on a regular basis.
And I love the characterization of Netanyahu as “inflexible and untrustworthy.” Well I guess the Post’s reporters have done their job in portraying his as such. Netanyahu was villified when he was Prime Minister for demanding that the Palestinians keep their end of the bargain. He did withdraw Israel from most of Chevron, something the even Shimon Peres failed to do. That’s not inflexible. (I don’t agree with that flexibility, but at least acknowledge that Netanyahu actually moved the peace process along.)
At the moment, the parties of Ms. Livni and Mr. Netanyahu are tied in the polls. A clear victory by Ms. Livni could energize the peace process, and its pursuit by the new president could strengthen the U.S. position around the region. But more likely is a narrow victory by one side or a coalition government that hamstrings Israel’s negotiating ability. That would perpetuate what at present is the leading obstacle to a deal, which is the political weakness of both the Israelis and Palestinians who seek it. As the Bush administration has discovered, intervention by the United States, even if energetic, cannot easily compensate for that deficit.
Notice how this is all about Israel. There’s nothing about the rapprochement between Fatah and Hamas. Or that a leading Palestinian university still denies historical Jewish ties to the land of Israel. Of even that, in legal proceedings, the PLO still argues that terror against Israel is justified.
To this, the PLO, represented in part by none other than the appalling Ramsey Clark (who in a distant age, 1967-69, was attorney general of the United States), replied that the attacks were acts of war rather than terrorism. As Daniels summarizes the PLO argument: “defendants argue that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking because this action is premised on acts of war, which is barred under the ATA [Antiterrorism Act of 1991], and further is based on conduct which does not meet the statutory definition of ‘international terrorism’.”
This response is noteworthy for two reasons: (1) Fifteen years after Oslo supposedly ended the state of war, four years after Mahmoud Abbas took over and supposedly improved on Arafat’s abysmal record, the PLO publicly maintains it remains at war with Israel. (2) The PLO argues, even in the context of an American law court, that blatant, cruel, inhumane, and atrocious acts of murder constitute legitimate acts of warfare.
This isn’t about the political weakness of those who seek peace. It’s about the lack of commitment of even the “moderate” Palestinian leadership to seek anything that would be considered “peace” by any rational person. If Livni wins decisively, she will still have to satisfy the ever increasing demands of Abbas.
Of course what the Post is doing is promoting the phony bogeyman of Netanyahu who can be blamed for any future failures of the peace process. Effectively, the editors of the Post are excusing the continued failure of the Palestinians to come to terms with Israel. By doing this, they are promoting and excusing conflict, not peace.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
Did the Post just admit that the security fence saves lives? How long until they return to the mantra about the fence being a land-grabbing act of racism intended to oppress the blameless Arabs (I mean Palestinians)?
Israeli polls are just as bad as our polls – or even worse. They always way overcount Labor as compared to Likud. So, hopefully, Netanyahu gets in. Livni doesn’t give the impression she knows what she is doing in the least.
Just to amend previous comment – they also seemed to way overweigh Livni’s win in the last Kadima internal election.
Every Israel government except the very first one has been a coalition government. If anybody expects a majority government anytime soon, and thinks that is what will be needed for peace, then they are going to be waiting a long time.
What is actually needed for peace is an Arab government willing to make peace and able to enforce it in its territory. We will get that too only when Greeks reckon time by the Kalends.