NYT Editorial Gets It Wrong

An editorial in this morning's New York Times entitled "President Abbas and Peace Talks" gets it wrong again and more often than not simply toes the Israeli line in the debate. The commentary below breaks down precisely what is lacing in the discussion around this issue in the mainstream media today.

The NY Times writes:

Making peace between Israelis and Palestinians is somewhat like solving a Rubik’s Cube. You get one colored square lined up but the next one just won’t fall into place. So it is now. After three months of American-mediated proximity talks, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has agreed to direct negotiations on a two-state solution; the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, is stubbornly resisting. It is time for him to talk.

Yeah. Somewhat like solving a Rubik's cube. Except in a Rubik's cube there is an equal balance of power between all colors and the mediator who is turning the cube isn't beholden to one color over the other as the US is beholden to Israeli interests. Again, the NYT repeats the Israeli mantra that the Israeli's are agreeing to talks and the "stubborn" Palestinians are resisting. But wait, the next paragraph give us some insight into why Mr. Abbas is being "stubborn".

There are understandable reasons for Mr. Abbas’s reluctance. We also don’t know whether Mr. Netanyahu, a master manipulator, really wants a deal or whether his hard-line governing coalition would ever let him make one. The proximity talks — the American envoy, George Mitchell, is shuttling again this week between Jerusalem and Ramallah — don’t seem to be getting very far, although there were hints of movement on Tuesday.

Ah ha, "understandable reasons". Ok, what are they? None mentioned. How about the simple and irrefutable fact that in the course of the now two-decade old peace process that was supposed to result in a Palestinian state in the occupied West Bank and Gaza, the Israelis have continued to build and expand illegal Israeli settlements, doubling the number of settlers in occupied territory since 1990. Sadly, this didn't make the cut into the NYT editorial. But I suppose, beyond the "understandable reasons" that Abbas has (which the NYT doesn't want to share) there maybe other reasons he is skeptical.

Mr. Abbas also is wary of Washington. After Mr. Obama demanded in 2009 that Mr. Netanyahu halt all settlement construction as a prelude to negotiations, Mr. Abbas did the same.

That wary old Abbas doesn't trust Washington. From reading this paragraph you'd think that the genesis of Abbas's distrust for Washington is in Obama's call for a settlement freeze. Perhaps the NYT Editorial Board thinks it would be a waste of page space to mention that the US has been calling for an end to settlements for 40 years and has viewed them as illegal. Despite this, the US has rarely done anything of any significance to change Israeli behavior and has instead only supported it by providing significant economic, military and diplomatic aid year after year.

When Mr. Netanyahu forced Mr. Obama to back down and the Israeli leader implemented a more limited and temporary building halt, Mr. Abbas was left clinging to the maximalist position. There are compelling reasons for Mr. Abbas to act, too.

Here we go again. Abbas got himself stuck up a tree. No mention, of course, that a settlement freeze is not a new demand but was part of the Road Map implemented but never enforced by President Bush in 2003.

First, Mr. Obama correctly sees a peace deal as a factor in wider regional stability. He invested lots of political capital in a justified but poorly executed attempt to push the Palestinian position by playing hardball with Israel on settlements.

Hardball? They NYT editorial board should quit their Sunday softball games and make it out to Yankee Stadium once in a while. Their concept of "hardball" is definitely lacking. Obama asked Netanyahu, repeatedly, to simply fulfill his obligations under international law. As Richard Falk put it, Obama's asking Netanyahu to temporarily stop building illegal settlements is the "equivalent to telling a bank robber, 'stop robbing banks for two weeks'". What sort of leverage did Obama apply while playing "hardball"? Well, the administration said they were "insulted" by the announcement of more new settlements when Vice President Biden was in Jerusalem. Also, the President's following meeting with Netanyahu didn't include a photo op. Careful, if you blink, you might miss that hard fastball (probably cause it was never thrown)!

The last time the US was able to get Israel to slow settlement building in occupied territory was when George H.W. Bush's administration conditioned economic aid to Israel. In the spectrum of methods of leverage, that would still be minor league play. But when it comes to Israel, for the NYT, simply asking politely and withholding a photo-op is "hardball".

It caused tensions with Mr. Netanyahu and with American Jews. He is pressing hard for direct talks and aides say he is losing patience with Mr. Abbas. It would be foolish for the Palestinian leader to alienate an American president who is committed to playing a more balanced role in negotiations.

Abbas does not want to alienate an American president who is committed to playing a more balanced role in negotiations. If Abbas finds that American president, he'd likely be more willing. But it is precisely because Obama's softball approach "caused tensions with Mr. Netanyahu and with American Jews" that Abbas seriously doubts Obama is able to deliver even if he is personally committed. Obama's recent reversal and kiss-and-make-up session with Netanyahu furthers Abbas' skepticism. The fact that support for Israel is becoming a campaign issue used against Obama's reeling party in an election year is also making Abbas less confident.

Second, Mr. Abbas has the backing of the Arab League, including crucial states like Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Last month, the group formally gave him a green light — important political cover — to enter direct talks. They need to press Mr. Abbas to move now. They should be prepared to increase aid to the Palestinian government and take steps, like opening trade offices, that will boost Israel’s confidence in a peace agreement.

Most readers do not realize that as the head of the Palestine Liberation Organization Mahmoud Abbas is recognized by the Arab League as the 'sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people' when it comes to negotiations. This comes from an Arab League decision from 1974. That Abbas, more than four decades later, goes back to the Arab League for "political cover" speaks more to his lack of legitimacy as a Palestinian negotiator than to the contrary. Of course, in the mainstream American media, the problem of domestic politics only seems to matter on the Israeli side.

Finally, Mr. Netanyahu’s moratorium on settlement construction expires on Sept. 26. If direct talks are under way, he should have no excuse to resume building. If there are no talks, Mr. Abbas will give him an escape hatch.

Which settlement moratorium is this? The one that has been violated 492 times. The notion that Netanyahu should have an excuse to continue breaking international law, because he temporarily stopped breaking international law for 10 months (with 492 exceptions or 1.64 exceptions per day on average) requires a type of logic that is so twisted and immoral that it belongs somewhere in the fine print of a credit card agreement designed to bankrupt the cardholder.

Mr. Abbas no doubt is worried that the Palestinians will be blamed if negotiations fail and that Mr. Netanyahu will use the process to give the illusion of progress while never addressing Palestinian concerns about borders, security, refugees and the future of Jerusalem. Mr. Obama must be ready to point fingers when needed and put forward his own proposals if progress lags.

And Mr. Abbas can rely on the Americans to point fingers at the Israelis if they balk. Just as Dennis Ross did after Camp David in 2000, oh wait, never mind, he was too busy acting as Israel's lawyer. It's a good thing he isn't involved in this administration's Middle East policy. Oh, wait, never mind....again.

The constant worry is that direct talks will devolve into recriminations and new violence. But if Mr. Abbas is not at the table, there is no serious way of testing Mr. Netanyahu’s intentions and whether there is any real chance of peacefully achieving a Palestinian state. That is the prize Mr. Abbas may be able deliver and his rejectionist rivals — Hamas — cannot. Mr. Abbas, who has long advocated a negotiated two-state solution, is seriously wrong if he thinks his leverage — and the future of the Palestinians — is in staying on the sidelines.

No chance of testing Netanyahu's intentions? What distant planet do you have to be living on to look at the right-wing coalition government Netanyahu put together and not be able to decipher his intentions?

If Abbas does not enter direct talks it's not because he doesn't want to test Netanyahu, its because the results of the test came in on Netanyahu long ago (If you have any doubts, see the video here). The results on Obama came in this year as well. Neither passed.

Share |