Those who enjoy the US media’s over-coverage of Israel should rejoice: The New York Times has printed no fewer than four editorials or op-eds yesterday and today having to do with the Jewish state.
The surge in Israeli-Palestinian-related commentary comes in anticipation of a week filled with high-level Israeli-American dialogue. Tomorrow, President Obama will deliver a speech on the revolutions sweeping the Middle East, and many are calling on him to mention Israel and the Palestinians. The following day, Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu will meet with Obama in Washington. AIPAC’s annual policy conference will begin over the weekend, and Bibi will address Congress on Tuesday, May 24.
So the Times brought out its big guns: Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, a staff editorial, Tom Friedman and–via the International Herald Tribune—Aaron David Miller. The only noted absence here was Roger Cohen, who–in a surprise turn–chose to write about airports this week.
Obviously, this cornucopia of commentary deserves a competition. So here we go:
First off, none of these pieces was particularly surprising. Abbas, the Palestinian president, wrote that the Palestinians want a state; Friedman, who has consistently criticized Israel during the past couple of years for not making enough of an effort toward peace, criticized Israel for not making enough of an effort toward peace; Miller, the former top-level negotiator, advocated quiet, top-level negotiation; the staff editorial stuck to precedent and called for a proactive US effort toward a two-state solution.
But which unsurprising article was the best? Here they are, in ascending order.
4. Abbas, for all of his pathos, fails at the outset due to a fact-check. Titled “The Long Overdue Palestinian State,” the article makes two false claims near its beginning: that Abbas’s family was forced from his home when he was a child, and that “Zionist forces” expelled Palestinians from the future state of Israel before Arab armies attacked the new state. But as Goldblog points out, “On other occasions, Abbas has stated that his family left Safed out of a general fear that Jews would seek ‘retribution’ against the Arabs of Safed…” Goldberg also notes that the Arabs’ attack on Israel came after the Arab rejection of the 1947 partition plan and before any Israeli expulsion of Arabs. Oh, and Abbas also seems to give up on negotiations with Israel altogether. So much for that.
3. The editorial, while factually accurate, falls into the familiar trap of making Israel and/or the Palestinians the focus or cause of any development in the Middle East. Supposing to write about Obama’s speech on the Arab Spring, the editorial–called “President Obama and the Arab Spring”–spends its first five paragraphs talking about Israel and then says, “Frankly, we do not see how Mr. Obama can talk persuasively about transformation in the Arab world without showing Palestinians a peaceful way forward.” Well, frankly, most of what’s been going on in the Arab world has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians. Neither Israel nor the Palestinians caused the revolutions in Tunisia or Egypt. Same with Libya or wherever else. While these developments certainly affect Israel, there is plenty for Obama to discuss without even mentioning the Palestinians.
2. Aaron David Miller, in “When Obama Meets with Netanyahu,” takes the opposite approach. He writes that because Obama and Netanyahu don’t see eye to eye, and because Netanyahu isn’t in a political position to begin negotiations, now is not the time for a grand speech that “can be picked apart and devalued months before talks could begin.” Instead, Miller advocates quiet diplomacy–private talks between Obama and Netanyahu, and Obama and Abbas, that can set the conditions necessary for negotiation. He makes good points but…
1. Tom Friedman, in “Bibi and Barack,” seems to strike the best balance between calling for action and recognizing that certain steps forward may be impossible. Where Miller advocates the cop-out of a conversation between Obama and Netanyahu–which is already happening on Friday–Friedman says that while a peace deal right now may be out of the question, there are actions Netanyahu can take, beyond talking to the president, that show that he is serious about peace:
Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel is always wondering why his nation is losing support and what the world expects of a tiny country surrounded by implacable foes. I can’t speak for the world, but I can speak for myself. I have no idea whether Israel has a Palestinian or Syrian partner for a secure peace that Israel can live with. But I know this: With a more democratic and populist Arab world in Israel’s future, and with Israel facing the prospect of having a minority of Jews permanently ruling over a majority of Arabs — between Israel and the West Bank, which could lead to Israel being equated with apartheid South Africa all over the world — Israel needs to use every ounce of its creativity to explore ways to securely cede the West Bank to a Palestinian state.
I repeat: It may not be possible. But Netanyahu has not spent his time in office using Israel’s creativity to find ways to do such a deal. He has spent his time trying to avoid such a deal — and everyone knows it. No one is fooled.
Friedman has it right: The situation is urgent. Israel and the US cannot waste time while the clock is ticking on UN recognition of a Palestinian state and while the Arab world is in turmoil. A treaty may be impossible, but that doesn’t mean that Netanyahu should sit back and do nothing. It’s time to act, and act publicly. Congrats, TF.
