Meryl Yourish and Mediacrity have already had a go at today's utterly offensive NT Times editorial "In the Mideast, a Giant Step Back." It seems that Gail Collins and company can't avoid apportioning some of the blame on Hamas's electoral victory on: Israel!
Israeli hard-liners can blame themselves as well. Even though most reasonable people have recognized Mr. Abbas as a far more pragmatic negotiating partner than Yasir Arafat was, Prime Minister Sharon failed to give Mr. Abbas any concession that he could point to as an achievement. Instead, Israel has busied itself with carrying out Mr. Sharon's doctrine of unilateral separation from the Palestinians, a doctrine that is sure to gain more favor now that the Palestinians have chosen Hamas.
This is more than a little dishonest. Because, actually Israel did give Mr. Abbas a huge boost. Or what should have been a huge boost. And Abbas did nothing with his opportunity. He didn't fight the terror groups. He didn't call for more cooperation with Israel. He didn't condemn terror attacks as evil (just as against "Palestinian interests.") Like his predecessor the peace process was simply something by which he could register gains of land but not take any responsibility for.
In an editorial at the time, Gaza Reality Check the NY Times hailed the Israeli withdrawal as an opportunity "...give the Palestinians there a chance at a better life." Israel withdrew from Gaza. At great risk Israel also ceded control of the borders of Gaza to ineffectual international supervision.
In fact one possibility that the editors of the Times don't consider is that the withdrawal from Gaza actually aided Hamas's electoral prospects. Daniel Pipes noted the results of a survey taken before Israel forcibly removed its citizens from Gaza:
Survey research of Palestinians living under the Palestinian Authority have to be treated with great caution, but these statistics make sense to me. According to a poll taken on July 13-15, 2005, by the Center for Opinion Polls and Survey at An-Najah National University, Gazans answered the question "Do you believe that the approval of the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip by the Israeli Government and the Knesset came as a result of … ?" this way:
The pressure caused by the Palestinian resistance: 45.6
The Security and Economic inexpediency of staying in the Strip: 32.4
The international pressure on Israel: 16.4
No opinion/I do not know: 5.6
Comment: Nearly half of Gazans, this says, see terrorism (a.k.a. "resistance") working. Another third are saying the same thing in a more diluted way (things are getting too difficult for Israel), leaving a mere fifth of the population that does not see Gazans as having pushed the Israelis out. (July 18, 2005)
Well guess what Hamas, a terror organization is associated with "resistance" a lot more than the corrupt officials of Fatah. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that the withdrawal from Gaza, however well it was intended, was a factor leading to Hamas's electoral victory.
So it amy well be that the Times has it wrong. It wasn't that Israel did too little that helped lead to Hamas's victory, but that Israel inadvertantly did too much.
Technorati Tags: Gaza, Hamas, Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Not enough or too much?
It's possible that Israel helped Hamas, but not the way the New York Times thinks.
Meryl Yourish and Mediacrity have already had a go at today's utterly offensive NT Times editorial "In the Mideast, a Giant Step Back." It seems that Gail Collins and company can't avoid apportioning some of the blame on Hamas's electoral victory on: Israel!
This is more than a little dishonest. Because, actually Israel did give Mr. Abbas a huge boost. Or what should have been a huge boost. And Abbas did nothing with his opportunity. He didn't fight the terror groups. He didn't call for more cooperation with Israel. He didn't condemn terror attacks as evil (just as against "Palestinian interests.") Like his predecessor the peace process was simply something by which he could register gains of land but not take any responsibility for.
In an editorial at the time, Gaza Reality Check the NY Times hailed the Israeli withdrawal as an opportunity "...give the Palestinians there a chance at a better life." Israel withdrew from Gaza. At great risk Israel also ceded control of the borders of Gaza to ineffectual international supervision.
In fact one possibility that the editors of the Times don't consider is that the withdrawal from Gaza actually aided Hamas's electoral prospects. Daniel Pipes noted the results of a survey taken before Israel forcibly removed its citizens from Gaza:
Well guess what Hamas, a terror organization is associated with "resistance" a lot more than the corrupt officials of Fatah. It isn't unreasonable to conclude that the withdrawal from Gaza, however well it was intended, was a factor leading to Hamas's electoral victory.
So it amy well be that the Times has it wrong. It wasn't that Israel did too little that helped lead to Hamas's victory, but that Israel inadvertantly did too much.
Technorati Tags: Gaza, Hamas, Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.
Posted by David Gerstman at January 27, 2006 02:07 PM