The New York Times Odd Editorial On A Palestinian State

In “A Viable Palestinian State,” the New York Times editorial is very concerned with the possibility that anything might get in the way of creating a separate Palestinian state. From the sound of it, the Times appears to be under the impression that a separate Palestinian state must be created at all costs. This might account for the odd arguments they present on behalf of that goal.

How odd of the Times to compare Prime Minister Olmert of Israel with the murderous terrorists of Hamas as two culprits equally guilty of impeding the creation of a Palestinian state.

How odd of The Times to decry the lack of input the Palestinians have been given--overlooking the massive, and bloody, input the Palestinians have had over the years. Israelis are still murdered. Kassam missiles are still being fired at Israeli civilians. The constitutions of both Fatah and Hamas still deny Israel’s right to exist. The Palestinian Authority has yet to fulfill even their first obligation under Phase I of the Roadmap—the "unconditional cessation of violence". The Palestinian Arabs have elected Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, stop terror, or respect previous agreements with Israel.

How odd that the Times with their great concern that the Palestinian Arabs not be punished by unilateral actions, fail to address the safety of the lives of Israelis that those actions--whether you agree with them or not--are intended to protect.

How odd that the Times praise Olmert for the withdrawal from the ‘occupied’ West Bank. You would think that the West Bank was ever Palestinian land, instead of previously being controlled by Jordan—illegally according to international law—from 1948 to1967, after having been under the control of the British, and the Ottoman Empire before that. The only relevant legal document on the issue is the British Mandate, which according to Eugene Rostow (who served in foreign policy positions for both Democratic and Republican presidents), establishes “the Jewish right of settlement in Palestine west of the Jordan river, that is, in Israel, the West Bank, Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip, was made unassailable. That right has never been terminated and cannot be terminated except by a recognized peace between Israel and its neighbors.”

How odd of the Times to admit that “even a future Palestine that includes all of the West Bank and Gaza is still going to be in two pieces with Israel in the middle, separating Gaza from the West Bank.”—as if this is the actual goal of Palestinian Arabs when they talk about a two state solution. This is a point that Israel Matzav addresses and expands on.

Finally, how odd that despite an entire editorial about creating a Palestinian state and its importance, it is not until the very last sentence that—except for a quote from Prime Minister Olmert—the New York Times once, and only once mentions the word ‘peace’.

How odd that the New York Times totally misses the forest for the trees.

Isn’t it?

There are a number of responses to the Times article on the blogosphere--Soccer Dad links to them in his post Times Zero.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Hamas and The New York Times.