I can't begin to think of a better example of why the world is so muddle-headed on Israel than this NYT editorial about Gaza. Read the NYT piece before you read the rest of this post. Andrew, this means you too.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/opinion/06tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
*Time passes while loyal readers swamp the New York Times Website.**
Spot the muddle headed "thinking?"
Israel, aided by the United States, Europe and moderate Arab states, must try to end this conflict as soon as possible and in a way that increases the chances for negotiating a broad regional peace.
That means ensuring at a minimum that Hamas — a proxy of Iran — is not seen as gaining from the war, that the rocket fire is halted permanently and that the terrorist group can no longer restock its arsenal with more deadly weapons via hundreds of tunnels dug under the Egypt-Gaza border.
Ok, let me see if I have this straight. The primary goal must be to "end this conflict as soon as possible." In short, a shriek to stop the killing! Well, I don't think that should be Israel's sole goal to be sure (otherwise why start fighting in the first place) but at least I understand this point.
But in the very next paragraph, without a hint of irony, the Times insists that the rocket fire (from Hamas) be halted permanently, and, to boot, that it cannot get more weapons through the Egypt border.
In short the New York Times agrees with the stated war aims of both Israel (END THE ROCKET THREAT FROM HAMAS) and Hamas STOP THE KILLING OF THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE). If supporting the war aims of two diametrically opposed parties strikes you as a bit odd and hypocritical, that's because it is.
How this magic solution of an end to the conflict "as soon as possible" is to be married with the goal of ending the Hamas rocket threat the Times neglects to inform us. Unless "as soon as possible" really means "as soon as Hamas is utterly destroyed. That I would support. But the tone of the New York Times piece means that it really means that the military operation end quickly. Which makes no sense; the New York Times knows perfectly well that if Israel ends the operation soon Hamas will rearm and the rocket threat will remain. Either you support the Israeli effort to reduce/eliminate the Hamas rocket threat, or at least show that rockets into Israel have consequences, or you don't. In this instance, you simply can't have it both ways.
In conclusion, as so many do regarding Israel, the New York Times wills the ends but not the means. Given that the Times is such an important paper and cares a lot about Israel, this lame effort to describe the Gaza situation is particularly pathetic.
3 comments:
And I thought it was just me. I had to reread this piece b/c I was so confused. The need to end the war as soon as possible followed by the need to keep Hamas from firing missles. But, how can you . . . oh, never mind. The reasoning made my brain hurt. It sounded like someone running for office - in a way, like they were agreeing w/ both sides.
-RNixon
What is required of Hamas? It seems that the NYT believes that not only should Israel let Hamas fire rockets into its territory, but should be forced to allow suicide bombers back onto its busses. The monitors will dully note this and act as human shields. The NYT demands nothing short of capitulation!
Edan, you misunderstand. The New York Times DOES require things of Hamas. Specifically, it DOES require that Hamas stop firing rockets at Israel. On that the Times is clear. Israel is also required to stop the use of military force. How Israel is to reasonable ENSURE that Hamas stops firing the rockets, and doesn't resume firing at a time of its choosing, is left unsaid. The Times of course wills the ends and not the means. And if, as seems inevitable, there is an agreed truce, you can be sure that when (surely when) Hamas fires again, the Times will simply dust off the piece I criticized, update it for the next "crisis" and change not a thing.
Post a Comment