Election misdirection
Imagine the Washington Post had run an editorial before the PA elections like this: The Palestinians Terror Choice
THE BAD NEWS about the Palestinian’s election campaign is that it has become a clear referendum on whether the Palestinians support terror or are serious about peace — and that the party favoring terror and openly denying Israel’s right to exist is running well in the polls. For decades the issue of whether to eschew terror and live peaceably with Israel has been obscured in Palestinian politics by debates over the right of return and an ever expanding list of grievances against Israel. Fatah the dominant political party since 1996 has at least paid lip service to the need to make peace and forswear violence; the extreme Hamas party makes no such pretenses.
Of course that wasn’t how the Washington Post presented it in “Pre-election turmoil” Nope. All was good in the PA.
Already, too, democracy is showing its benefits. Faced with the possibility of defeat by Hamas, Fatah has been forced to overhaul the aging and corrupt cadre left behind by Yasser Arafat and install young reformers at the top of its legislative list. Their leader, the Israeli-imprisoned Marwan Barghouti, published a remarkable letter in Palestinian newspapers Friday apologizing for Fatah’s mistakes and asking voters for another chance. Hamas itself is showing some pragmatism: Its newly elected council members supported the election last week of a Christian woman as mayor of Ramallah, the most important West Bank town. A senior Israeli army official recently predicted that if Hamas did win the elections it would continue to curtail attacks on Israel.
There was no position in the PA that the Post didn’t moderate. Barghouti an unrepentant terrorist “apologizes” for corruption but not terror. Hamas, according to speculation, might moderate its positions. In the Palestinian election, Fred Hiatt and company saw no bad side. That’s not the case in the Israeli election in an editorial (that was co-opted above) “Israel’s West Bank Choice” the editors declare
THE GOOD NEWS about Israel’s election campaign is that it has become a clear referendum on whether Israel should unilaterally withdraw from up to 90 percent of the occupied West Bank and evacuate thousands of Jewish settlers — and that the parties favoring this “disengagement” are leading. For decades the issue of whether to yield or keep occupied territory has been obscured in Israeli politics by debates over how to respond to terrorism, or whether Palestinian partners in the “peace process” can be trusted. The winner of the past two elections, the now-disabled Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, was deliberately vague about his plans for the West Bank, saying only that “painful compromises” might be necessary.
Remember in the leadup to the PA’s election the Washington Post let us know that there were no bad choices. But in the upcoming Israeli election there is one and only one good choice: further Israeli withdrawals. The Post, unlike the NY Times, does not hold strong leftist views regarding foreign policy. Its editorials on foreign matters are often well thought out. Except when it comes to Israel and the Middle East. Then the Post relies on catechism. The reason there’s no peace in the Middle East according to the Post’s editorial board (including at least one former MidEast correspondent) is the “occupation.” The “occupation” that has allowed the Palestinians to claim grievance time and again, not to necessarily get forgiveness for their terror, but, at least, understanding. And understanding is something that the Washington Post has plenty of for the terrorists of the PA (Fatah is also a terrorist organization. It might be better at hiding it than Hamas is). Understanding is not something the Post has for some democrats in Israel. The Post crows
Mr. Olmert’s principal opponent, former prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, is saying with equal clarity that Israel should not carry out such a unilateral withdrawal. “The question today is who will cede territory and who will hold on to territory,” he said recently. That’s as black-and-white a choice as an electorate could wish for. And so far, polls are showing that Mr. Olmert’s Kadima party will finish first in the March 28 vote by a wide margin, while Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party may win fewer than 10 percent of the seats in parliament.
Yes the Likud party might win fewer than 10 percent of the seats in Knesset. But there’s no poll that shows that right now. It’s also hard to take current polls all that seriously as there seem to be a high number of undecided votes. But even if Israelis choose the right PM, the Post still has its doubts.
Once a new government is formed, however, President Bush may find that the West Bank offers one of his greatest remaining foreign policy opportunities. If elected, Mr. Olmert will certainly depend on U.S. support for his withdrawal plan, and so the administration will have an important opportunity to press for adjustments that could make possible the eventual creation of a stable Palestinian state.
12+ years of advocating still hasn’t brought about the correct conditions for a “stable Palestinian state.” No matter what Israel had ceded in terms of territory or its security the Palestinians have insisted that it’s never enough and always have some excuse or another for failing to create a viable state. Finally the Post’s condescension and cynicism towards Israel wouldn’t be complete without
So it’s not surprising that Mr. Olmert would have ordered yesterday’s sensational raid on a Palestinian prison in the West Bank, in which Israeli forces captured six militants accused of murdering a right-wing Israeli minister in 2001. True, Palestinian leaders invited the intervention by suggesting that the ringleader of the group would soon be freed, and U.S. and British monitors withdrew from the prison minutes before the raid, reportedly because of their own objections to security arrangements. But this was an act tailored for Israeli voters, some of whom will be as pleased by the predictable expressions of Palestinian and international outrage as they are by the roundup of bad guys.
What’s that? The PA breaks its pledge and states that it plans to free terrrorists and Israel’s reaction is merely an election ploy? If the Post truly wants a stable Palestinian state it should have some reasonable demands on the behavior of that state. The Post has too often excused Palestinian perfidy and continues to do so. Let’s be very clear. as David Chanoff wrote about Ariel Sharon
The fact that a people so damned by Allah might recreate itself, lay claim to Islam’s third holiest city and defeat Arab armies time and again is for many devout Muslims an intolerable assault on faith. Arab enmity, from this perspective, is not just the anger of an injured people. It is a hatred rooted in religion, a historic determination not to let faith be defeated, like the hatred and contempt felt by Crusaders for Muslims who controlled what they felt to be the Christian holy land.
All the land, money and excuses will not bring peace. Only a change of heart will. The Post’s preference for further Israeli withdrawals is a recipe for more disasters. I’m not sure what exactly the editors of the Post want. I am sure it is nothing that benefits Israel.
Technorati tags: Israeli elections, media bias.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
