Steven Erlanger of the New York Times reported last week, "Abbas's Gamble: Pulling a Foe Into Palestinian Politics". In the article he asks:
It is a considerable gamble. Will democracy help bring Hamas into the mainstream? Or will Mr. Abbas empower a terrorist group that could sweep him away and reignite warfare with Israel?
Those clever bits of misdirection hide what should be the main thrust of the article: that President Abbas is openly defying one of his principle obligations according to the "Road Map:" to confront and dismantle Hamas. Instead he brazenly tries to co-opt the organization.
There is a campaign afoot. But it is one in the media to whitewash Abbas's failings.
(In fairness to the PA, the Middle East Media Research Institute's "
Abu Mazen's Presidency: An Interim Assessment" shows some progress made by Abbas. None of it convinces me that he is yet worthy of unqualified support.)
Incidentally, if Gen Ward's commendation was so convincing why wasn't it reported in the Washington Post? I searched the Post's archive and there was no mention of Ward's report on or about May 17.
The beginning of the editorial starts of with another dubious claim:
THE FIRST ATTEMPT by Mahmoud Abbas to lead Palestinians toward a peaceful settlement with Israel two years ago failed in part because of the obstructionism of Yasser Arafat. But it failed also, as many in Washington and Israel later conceded, because President Bush and Prime Minister Ariel Sharon did not do enough to support the Palestinian leader.
Who are the "many in Washington and Israel?" Are they the starry eyed peace processors who refused to acknowledge Arafat's true nature until he was gone and it was needed to demonize him in order to boost Abbas by comparison?
Since the Post feels that a prisoner release will boost Abbas why doesn't it at least acknowledge that
Israel boosted Abbas with a prisoner release two years ago?
The notion that a prisoner release will somehow bring peace is, of course, patent nonsense. Would the Post recommend as a solution to the growing problem of violence in Prince George's County an early release of several hundred convicts? In fact
many of those terrorists Israel releases return to terror their promises to reform notwithstanding.
The reason that the prisoner releases are so important to the Palestinians is because it is a way of saying that extremism in the cause of Palestinian nationalism is not terror. Apparently that's a sentiment that the Post's editors agree with.
No is it clear that ceding land to the PA will help the cause of peace:
The Israeli leader will be preoccupied for the next several months with the withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip, itself a major step toward peace.
How so? Israel withdrew from Bethlehem, Ramallah, Shechem, Tulkarem, Kalkilya and Jenin in late 1995. In early 1996, Israel was struck with an unprecedented wave of terror. If withdrawals help peace that episode surely doesn't demonstrate.
It's also important to remember that terror from Jenin wasn't reduced until Israel sent soldiers in to route out the the terrorists.
A withdrawal can only bring peace if the PA takes action to secure the areas Israel withdraws from. That hasn't happened since 1993; there is no evidence that it will happen now.
The editorial ends with a flourish:
But if the final settlement Mr. Bush aspires to is to remain a possibility, Mr. Sharon cannot limit himself to Gaza: He must also begin to engage seriously with Mr. Abbas and diminish rather than expand Israel's presence in the West Bank. Palestinian reform and disarmament remain necessary preconditions to a successful peace process. But as Mr. Bush seemed to recognize this week, the best chance of achieving those goals is to empower the Palestinian leader who supports them.
No it isn't. Can a Palestinian leader be more "empowered" than Yasser Arafat was? Yet he chose not to make peace. Not to accept the generous deals he was offered. Arafat learned well, he knew that his perfidies would be whitewashed in order to keep the "peace process" going, so he continued promoting violence against Israel as long as he lived.
The only way to peace, if it is possible, is to show the Palestinians that they have obligations and hold them to those obligations. Letting up pressure the moment they say or do something right is the surest way back violence. The terrorist groups aren't disarming; they're building their arsenals. Waiting for the moment that the PA says that Israel's demands are too great or concessions are not enough. Waiting until they will once again be allowed to strike Israeli civilians and be excused by the world for their righteous anger. If after the past (nearly) thirteen years, the editors of the Post are morally blind and, yes, supporters of terror. Whether they realize it or not.
Crossposted on
Israpundit and
Soccer Dad.
A campaign for terror
On May 17, 2005, Reuters reported "U.S. security envoy Ward praises Palestinian Authority reforms":
That seems like qualified support. Alas you would get no idea of that from a recent Washington Post editorial, "A boost for Mr. Abbas": Israel has a campaign to malign Abbas? Really?Steven Erlanger of the New York Times reported last week, "Abbas's Gamble: Pulling a Foe Into Palestinian Politics". In the article he asks:
Those clever bits of misdirection hide what should be the main thrust of the article: that President Abbas is openly defying one of his principle obligations according to the "Road Map:" to confront and dismantle Hamas. Instead he brazenly tries to co-opt the organization.There is a campaign afoot. But it is one in the media to whitewash Abbas's failings.
(In fairness to the PA, the Middle East Media Research Institute's "Abu Mazen's Presidency: An Interim Assessment" shows some progress made by Abbas. None of it convinces me that he is yet worthy of unqualified support.)
Incidentally, if Gen Ward's commendation was so convincing why wasn't it reported in the Washington Post? I searched the Post's archive and there was no mention of Ward's report on or about May 17.
Who are the "many in Washington and Israel?" Are they the starry eyed peace processors who refused to acknowledge Arafat's true nature until he was gone and it was needed to demonize him in order to boost Abbas by comparison?The beginning of the editorial starts of with another dubious claim:
Since the Post feels that a prisoner release will boost Abbas why doesn't it at least acknowledge that Israel boosted Abbas with a prisoner release two years ago?
The notion that a prisoner release will somehow bring peace is, of course, patent nonsense. Would the Post recommend as a solution to the growing problem of violence in Prince George's County an early release of several hundred convicts? In fact many of those terrorists Israel releases return to terror their promises to reform notwithstanding.
The reason that the prisoner releases are so important to the Palestinians is because it is a way of saying that extremism in the cause of Palestinian nationalism is not terror. Apparently that's a sentiment that the Post's editors agree with.
No is it clear that ceding land to the PA will help the cause of peace: How so? Israel withdrew from Bethlehem, Ramallah, Shechem, Tulkarem, Kalkilya and Jenin in late 1995. In early 1996, Israel was struck with an unprecedented wave of terror. If withdrawals help peace that episode surely doesn't demonstrate.
It's also important to remember that terror from Jenin wasn't reduced until Israel sent soldiers in to route out the the terrorists.
A withdrawal can only bring peace if the PA takes action to secure the areas Israel withdraws from. That hasn't happened since 1993; there is no evidence that it will happen now.
The editorial ends with a flourish: No it isn't. Can a Palestinian leader be more "empowered" than Yasser Arafat was? Yet he chose not to make peace. Not to accept the generous deals he was offered. Arafat learned well, he knew that his perfidies would be whitewashed in order to keep the "peace process" going, so he continued promoting violence against Israel as long as he lived.
The only way to peace, if it is possible, is to show the Palestinians that they have obligations and hold them to those obligations. Letting up pressure the moment they say or do something right is the surest way back violence. The terrorist groups aren't disarming; they're building their arsenals. Waiting for the moment that the PA says that Israel's demands are too great or concessions are not enough. Waiting until they will once again be allowed to strike Israeli civilians and be excused by the world for their righteous anger. If after the past (nearly) thirteen years, the editors of the Post are morally blind and, yes, supporters of terror. Whether they realize it or not.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at May 31, 2005 06:12 AM