The first day of Israel’s war against Hamas brought this comment from a Jerusalem Post editorial:
At this newspaper, we wonder how an international community that can’t bring itself to explicitly support Israel’s operation against the most intransigent of Muslim fanatics expects to play a positive role in facilitating peace in this region.
Depressingly (if not unexpectedly) enough, American newspapers showed their lack of support very early.
A Washington Post editorial after the first day of fighting, Israel Strikes was generally supportive of Israel, however, it also warned:
While the fighting lasts — and Israeli officials were warning yesterday that it could be prolonged — Hamas’s principal sponsor, Iran, will have achieved a tactical success. Israeli diplomats have been working feverishly in recent weeks to focus international attention on the Iranian nuclear program as the Obama administration prepares to take office. They’ve been warning that the new U.S. president will have to act quickly if an Iranian bomb is to be stopped. Now, for weeks or possibly months to come, all eyes will be on Gaza — on the fighting, the continued suffering of civilians and the need for a fresh settlement. Israel might have avoided this fight, and gained a diplomatic advantage of its own, by relaxing the economic blockade. Now it will be embroiled in a costly battle that, in the end, is a distraction from the most serious threat it faces.
I never got this. Why does paying attention to an immediate threat preclude the possibility of dealing with a longer term threat? Furthermore, Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons, as Barry Rubin has pointed out, wouldn’t necessarily be with an eye towards necessarily using them, but would be another tool to project its power. So if Israel would allow Hamas free rein with no consequences, wouldn’t that show Iran that it could freely project its power throughout the region? So Israel’s war against Hamas, far from strengthening Iran, let Iran know that its proxies would be challenged.
The Washington Post editorials over the course of the conflict generally maintained this posture: Israel was right to attack, but its attack may well be counterproductive.
The next day the New York Times weighed in with War over Gaza. After some boilerplate about Israel’s right to defend itself, the Times of course called on Israel to demonstrate restraint.
By Monday, some 350 Palestinians — mostly Hamas security forces — were reported killed. A Hamas security compound was among dozens of structures pummeled in the attacks, and the group’s leaders were supposedly driven into hiding. The Israeli defense minister, Ehud Barak, promised a “war to the bitter end.â€
We hope he does not mean a ground war. That, or any prolonged military action, would be disastrous for Israel and lead to wider regional instability. Mr. Barak and Israel’s foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, both candidates to succeed Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in elections set for February, must not be drawn any further into a competition with the front-runner, Benjamin Netanyahu, over who is the biggest hawk.
The Times too, misses the point, in a different way. By reducing Israel’s war against Hamas to a campaign issue, it imputed cynicism to Israel’s leadership. The war wasn’t about positioning candidates; it was about defending israel’s citizens, especially in the south.
Early in the conflict the Post did feature an excellent op-ed by Ephraim Sneh and the New York Times featured one by Benny Morris. Still it was hard not to get the impression that the editors of both papers would have been less troubled if the residents of Sderot had remained undefended.
(In contrast to these two bastions of liberal thought, the Wall Street Journal exhibited a lot more common sense and sympathy for Israel. The Journal also featured an op-ed co-written by future ambassador Michael Oren.)
This video here, released on the first day of the war, should have defined the way the war was covered.
UPDATE: For more see the JCPA’s Daily Alert from December 28, 2008.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
