Unable To Influence Israeli Election Too, Washington Post Tries To Discount It (Updated)

Apparently the US media is looking to expand. After having gone in the tank for Obama and unquestioningly covering him during the campaign leading up to his their successful victory, the Washington Post now has their eyes set on overseas.

According to the Post:

Having promised more active diplomacy in the Middle East, the Obama administration will have to grapple with how to advance its aims despite what could be fundamental disagreements with Israel's new leaders. One way to do so is to push for the conclusion by the outgoing Israeli government of a cease-fire with Hamas. Egypt was reported last week to be close to brokering a deal that would promise an 18-month halt in hostilities, the freeing of a captive Israeli soldier as well as hundreds of Palestinian prisoners, and the opening of Gaza border crossings. Such a deal could forestall the renewed military attack on Gaza that Mr. Netanyahu has been hinting at. It might also lead to an agreement between Hamas and Mr. Abbas that would restore a single Palestinian government.

The Washington Post thinks nothing of full democratic elections in Israel, or the fact that the increased mandate for the right-wing bloc indicates the renewed concerns of the Israeli people for their security in the face of rocket attacks from the terrorist group Hamas, whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel.

Instead, the editorial calls upon Obama to disregard what Israelis want, and instead resurrect the deals and understandings of a disgraced Prime Minister who acted with a single-digit approval rate. If the mind staggers at the hubris of the Washington Post, the editorial also blindly pushes for a cease-fire with Hamas, which--depending on the conditions--would give the terrorist group more authority and further opportunity to declare victory, while giving them the opportunity to rearm. The Washington Post has learned nothing from Israel's war with Hizbollah. It also has the chutzpah to compare the release of Gilad Shalit with the release of what is euphemistically referred to as Palestinian prisoners--who actually will be Palestinian terrorists, and who knows how many will have blood on their hands. The editorial finds it preferable instead that Abbas and Hamas reunite--the latter a single-minded terrorist group. the former a weak and ineffectual leader: leave it to the Washington Post to declare such a deadly combination as something to be desired.

The final paragraph of this ill-conceived editorial sums it all up:

At the same time, the Obama administration should not adopt the Bush administration's practice of accepting Israeli positions as givens. Whether or not the new government favors negotiations on a Palestinian state, Mr. Obama should challenge it to continue the process started by outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Mr. Abbas. If Israel does not comply with its own commitments to dismantle illegal West Bank settlements, the administration should hold it accountable. Neither Israel nor the United States can afford another government that obstructs a Middle East peace.

In the eyes of the Post, far be it that Israelis be allowed to dictate their own security concerns, when there are the promises of a leader without a mandate who flailed around in all directions offering agreements in an attempt to secure some kind of legacy. 

On one point I will agree with the Washington Post: we cannot afford another government that obstructs a Middle East peace--but in interfering in the Israel-Palestinian conflict and imposing artificial rules, the US will end up being just that government.

More at Memeorandum

UPDATE: Barry Rubin writes:

Most Israelis believe that the Palestinians don't want to make a comprehensive peace with Israel in exchange for a Palestinian state. Hamas doesn’t want it; the Palestinian Authority (PA) is both unwilling and unable to do it. Israel faces a hostile Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah, and various Islamist movements which all want to destroy it. In addition, it cannot depend on strong Western or international support in defending itself.

Therefore, it is not a moment for Israel to make big concessions or take big risks. Peace is not at hand. The priority—even while continuing negotiations and trying to help the PA to survive—is defense.

That’s what the people who voted for Labor or Likud or Lieberman, Kadima or Shas or National Union or Jewish Home or United Torah Judaism believed. More than 85 percent of Israelis voted for parties that hold that basic conception, while that concept itself is the product of a very serious assessment of very real experience. And that—whatever differences they have—is beyond any definition of “left” or “right.”

In contrast, what is the main theme internationally in evaluating the elections? The right in Israel is against peace, Israelis moved to the right in this election hence Israelis are against peace.

That is the problem in  a nutshell.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Gaza and Hamas and Obama and The Washington Post.