Does Olmert Have The Support Of The Media?

The Jerusalem Post reports that Olmert said on Sunday that he will be quick to redraw Israel's borders in the West Bank as part of his "convergence plan" now that it is clear that there is no peace partner to talk to after Hamas has defended the terrorist attack that killed 9 Israelis in Tel Aviv. Apparently Olmert finds support for Disengagement from the West Bank from The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Guardian.

According to the Jerusalem Post, Olmert:

pointed to editorials that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post and even in Britain's Guardian, which he characterized "as Left as can be," that praised "the Israeli position and essentially said it has been proven that Israel does not have a partner and that this will necessarily lead to unilateral Israeli steps." [emphasis added]

True, The Times and The Post are negative on Hamas--see the Honest Reporting Communique on this point--but there is a difference between the media saying that Olmert is going to take unilateral steps and actually supporting the necessity those steps.

What The New York Times actually said was:

Hamas's support for terrorism encourages Mr. Olmert's strategy of a unilateral separation from the Palestinian people. It's a sure bet that if Israel carries out this separation without input from the Palestinians — as it is now doing — the Palestinians will not end up with enough land for a viable state.

This is nothing new--it is simply stating the fact that Olmert wants to take unilateral steps and what the result will likely be on a future Palestinian State.

The Washington Post, on the other hand, does not even mention Olmert. The editorial notes that "Hamas's position will also justify tough new measures by Israel, which cannot be expected to accept a neighboring government's open embrace of suicide bombers who attack its cities. "--but those 'tough new measures' have nothing to due with redrawing borders:

The Israeli army already wages a ruthless but narrowly targeted war against Islamic Jihad and has killed a score of its members in the past several months while arresting hundreds of others. A separate campaign of artillery barrages and airstrikes is aimed at suppressing rocket launches into Israel from the Gaza Strip, which are being carried out by several Palestinian factions. Yesterday the Israeli cabinet reportedly decided to refrain from renewing military action against Hamas itself. But if more suicide bombers succeed in the coming days and weeks with Hamas's support, this restraint will surely be abandoned.

This contrasts with the Times that praises Olmert for "taking the high road" in not retaliating, but instead revoking the residency permits of Hamas officials in East Jerusalem, conducting raids in the West Bank to make arrests, and conducting a police crackdown on the smuggling of Palestinians into Israel--no praise for any unilateral action.

And what about The Guardian? I don't know what editorial Olmert is pointing to as condemning Hamas and accepting unilateral action as inevitable, but if the Guardian is saying it, it is not with a unanimous voice. From April 19, there is an article entitled "Last chance for two states: Negotiation rather than unilateralism is the way out of the spiralling Israeli-Palestinian crisis." Another article is no better, harsher on Israel than on Hamas:

The Palestinian Authority chairman, Mahmoud Abbas, said violence was against Palestinian interests and urged the international community to encourage peace negotiations "to stop the grave deterioration the region is witnessing".

But Israel seized on the Hamas statement, even though it has suspended its attacks against Israel and said it would not carry out suicide attacks in the future. Ra'anan Gissin, a spokesman for Mr Olmert, said: "This Palestinian Authority, which has clearly defined itself as a terrorist entity, has tried to instigate terrorist support more than the previous one did, and we will act accordingly."[emphasis added]

Olmert may yet be justified in believing that world governments as a whole may yet side with Israel against Hamas, but if he thinks that these newspapers are the tea leaves that reveal the coming approval of world opinion--he's better off reading blogs instead.

More importantly, as Powerline points out:

What really matters is whether Israel has a true peace partner, not whether "foreign ministries around the world" think it does. If Israel lacks such a partner, as is surely the case, it must act accordingly regardless of what various foreign ministries and editorial writers believe. To be sure, Israel must also worry about how the Bush administration views things, but only to that limited extent should the opinions of foreigners matter.

It's a bad sign that Olmert thinks otherwise, and a terrible sign that he's interested in what liberal editorial writers at the Times, Post, and Guardian are saying.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Hamas and West Bank and Disengagement.