NYT Has Literally No Clue What They're Talking About - Virtually Lies About Israeli Stance, Ends up Recommending that the US Violate Treaty Obligations
Alternative headline for this post: "NYT Finds Mid-East Arab Election They Can Endorse"
The New York Times has published their contribution to Middle East diplomacy, urging the Bush administration to pressure Israel not to interference with Hamas's election campaigning. This is a thinly veiled anti-Israel hit-piece in the tattered sheep's clothing of an editorial. You can tell that there's something going on other than 'policy recommendation' because the article literally advocates that the Bush administration "must continue" doing what it's already doing. Yes, the Paper of Record took time to issue an urgent editorial exhorting the administration to... not change anything! Maybe, just maybe, a different motive is at work here (stop rolling your eyes - we don't mean "anti-Semitism" - it's much closer to fashionable, reflexive, myopic, unreflective, trite Leftism).
We're not even all that concerned with the logical acrobatics that the reader is expected to perform so that these six paragraphs gain even a minimum of plausibility. For example, the article claims that Hamas is so popular right now because of the social services they provide. And it also concedes that Hamas is currently a violent, rejectionist organization. But for some reason, having Hamas win the election will force them to have to provide... social services - which will make them... less violent (?!) But seriously - that's the argument:
We can only hope that if Hamas wins a share of power, Palestinians will expect the same of it as they did of the P.L.O. If the Islamic militants persist in provoking Israeli incursions, roadblocks and assassinations, their welcome will soon wear thin.
Every sentence on this paragraph - and at least one sentence clause – is at least in significant tension with some other part of the article (as well as with reality, but again, we're still on the "internal contradictions" part of this post).
"If Hamas wins a share of power"? In the preceding paragraph the article argued that Hamas already has a share of power ("many of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas in the municipal elections"). Yet that presumably has done nothing to moderate the group.
"Palestinians will expect the same of it as they did of the P.L.O."? In the preceding paragraph the article asserts that the expectation of the P.L.O. when they arrived for their first election was that they were terrorists ("the Palestine Liberation Organization... once seemed even less acceptable than Hamas"). That assertion can't have been in the context of the P.L.O. of the distant past - before they participated in elections - because that wouldn't really have much to do with the expectation of Hamas as it relates to, well, to participation in elections.
"If the Islamic militants persist in provoking Israeli incursions, roadblocks and assassinations, their welcome will soon wear thin"? Two paragraphs above, the article staked its entire position on the claim that Israeli interference in Palestinian internal affairs increases Hamas's popularity ("the more that Israel and the United States are perceived as meddling in the vote, the more Palestinians will seek to defy them... if Hamas is forced off the ticket... Hamas will come out with an even higher standing among the Palestinians"). For this not to be a contradiction, somehow the NYT would have to convince you that forcing Hamas's leaders "off the ticket" would make the organization more popular, but assassinating those same leaders would make the organization less popular.
And yet, believe it or not, the most mendacious part of this editorial - worse than the transparent agenda and worse than the internal contradictions - is how very close it gets to outright lying about the Israeli position on Hamas's participation in the upcoming elections:
The messy thing about democracy is that people tend to vote for the candidates they want - a point that seemed lost on Israel yesterday when it threatened to ban Palestinians in East Jerusalem from voting in the scheduled Palestinian elections if Hamas took part. Israel is concerned about a strong showing by Hamas. That's understandable, but democracy doesn't work this way. Israel allowed Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to vote in Palestinian Authority elections in 1996 and to vote earlier this year, when Mahmoud Abbas was elected president. Israel can't just decide to take away that right because it's afraid of who may win next time.
The patronizing condescension is surpassed only by the inexcusable obfuscation. We think that the rhetorical strategy is meant to help the reader get over the shock that the New York Times has finally found an Arab election in the Middle East that they support (old slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print"; new slogan: "Endorsing Only the Arab Elections that Terrorists Will Win"). But when you finally dig through the insufferable smugness of "Israel can't just decide.... because it's afraid of who may win", there are actually real claims being made here - they just happen to be demonstrably false. The full paragraph is:
Israel is concerned about a strong showing by Hamas. That's understandable, but democracy doesn't work this way. Israel allowed Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to vote in Palestinian Authority elections in 1996 and to vote earlier this year, when Mahmoud Abbas was elected president. Israel can't just decide to take away that right because it's afraid of who may win next time.
Now, when one reads this paragraph, one might well get the impression that the only difference between the election of 1996 and the current election is that Israel had "decided to take away" the ability of Palestinians in East Jerusalem to vote because Israel is "afraid of who may win". This impression, of course, would be false. The real difference between the election of 1996 and the current election is that the current election campaign is in explicit violation of the Oslo Accords while the 1996 one was, well, not:
The Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, pursuant to the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO. Oslo Interim Agreement, Annex 2, Article III (1995) outlines eligibility for PA elected office:
The nomination of any candidates, parties or coalitions will be refused, and such nomination or registration once made will be canceled, if such candidates, parties or coalitions:
(1) commit or advocate racism; or
(2) pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or nondemocratic means.
So three minutes of research demonstrates that the Israeli concern is at least somewhat plausibly about something other than "who may win" (well, it takes three minutes if you know something about the situation - admittedly, we don't expect the NYT to actually know anything about the situations they deign to sagely advise everyone about).The problem isn't necessarily with who is going to win - it's much more basic, and has to do with who is running right now. The reason that Israel is interfering with the election is because it's being conducted in explicit violation of the Palestinians' treaty obligations. Which also means that when the Times urges the "the Bush administration [to] continue to" pressure Israel to back off Hamas, they're urging that the United States abandon its Oslo commitments (old slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print"; new slogan: "Endorsing Only the Arab Elections that Violate US Treaty Obligations").
Not that it matters at this point, but obviously the paragraph that includes the line "many of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas in the municipal elections did so not because they approve of Islamist terrorism" is either trivial or misleading. If all that's meant is that Palestinians can like an organization which has built its entire existence on destroying Israel for other reasons ("Mussolini made the trains run on time!"), then the writers owe each reader the 1.5 seconds of their life that it took to learn that you can like an organization for reasons in addition to the reason you already like them. If it was supposed to not so subtly imply that Palestinians don't support terrorists, then it's kind of wrong: as of two weeks ago, 65% of the Palestinian public supports terrorist attacks against Israel. Of course, the editorial is unclear whether it's trying to be trivial or misleading (plausible deniability is a beautiful thing). But one thing is certain - the NYT editorial board thinks letting Hamas have access to international legitimacy and billions in aid is at least worth trying out. Old slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print"; new slogan: "Endorsing Only the Arab Elections that Threaten Israeli Security".
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
The New York Times has published their contribution to Middle East diplomacy, urging the Bush administration to pressure Israel not to interference with Hamas's election campaigning. This is a thinly veiled anti-Israel hit-piece in the tattered sheep's clothing of an editorial. You can tell that there's something going on other than 'policy recommendation' because the article literally advocates that the Bush administration "must continue" doing what it's already doing. Yes, the Paper of Record took time to issue an urgent editorial exhorting the administration to... not change anything! Maybe, just maybe, a different motive is at work here (stop rolling your eyes - we don't mean "anti-Semitism" - it's much closer to fashionable, reflexive, myopic, unreflective, trite Leftism).
We're not even all that concerned with the logical acrobatics that the reader is expected to perform so that these six paragraphs gain even a minimum of plausibility. For example, the article claims that Hamas is so popular right now because of the social services they provide. And it also concedes that Hamas is currently a violent, rejectionist organization. But for some reason, having Hamas win the election will force them to have to provide... social services - which will make them... less violent (?!) But seriously - that's the argument:
We can only hope that if Hamas wins a share of power, Palestinians will expect the same of it as they did of the P.L.O. If the Islamic militants persist in provoking Israeli incursions, roadblocks and assassinations, their welcome will soon wear thin.
Every sentence on this paragraph - and at least one sentence clause – is at least in significant tension with some other part of the article (as well as with reality, but again, we're still on the "internal contradictions" part of this post).
"If Hamas wins a share of power"? In the preceding paragraph the article argued that Hamas already has a share of power ("many of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas in the municipal elections"). Yet that presumably has done nothing to moderate the group.
"Palestinians will expect the same of it as they did of the P.L.O."? In the preceding paragraph the article asserts that the expectation of the P.L.O. when they arrived for their first election was that they were terrorists ("the Palestine Liberation Organization... once seemed even less acceptable than Hamas"). That assertion can't have been in the context of the P.L.O. of the distant past - before they participated in elections - because that wouldn't really have much to do with the expectation of Hamas as it relates to, well, to participation in elections.
"If the Islamic militants persist in provoking Israeli incursions, roadblocks and assassinations, their welcome will soon wear thin"? Two paragraphs above, the article staked its entire position on the claim that Israeli interference in Palestinian internal affairs increases Hamas's popularity ("the more that Israel and the United States are perceived as meddling in the vote, the more Palestinians will seek to defy them... if Hamas is forced off the ticket... Hamas will come out with an even higher standing among the Palestinians"). For this not to be a contradiction, somehow the NYT would have to convince you that forcing Hamas's leaders "off the ticket" would make the organization more popular, but assassinating those same leaders would make the organization less popular.
And yet, believe it or not, the most mendacious part of this editorial - worse than the transparent agenda and worse than the internal contradictions - is how very close it gets to outright lying about the Israeli position on Hamas's participation in the upcoming elections:
The messy thing about democracy is that people tend to vote for the candidates they want - a point that seemed lost on Israel yesterday when it threatened to ban Palestinians in East Jerusalem from voting in the scheduled Palestinian elections if Hamas took part. Israel is concerned about a strong showing by Hamas. That's understandable, but democracy doesn't work this way. Israel allowed Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to vote in Palestinian Authority elections in 1996 and to vote earlier this year, when Mahmoud Abbas was elected president. Israel can't just decide to take away that right because it's afraid of who may win next time.
The patronizing condescension is surpassed only by the inexcusable obfuscation. We think that the rhetorical strategy is meant to help the reader get over the shock that the New York Times has finally found an Arab election in the Middle East that they support (old slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print"; new slogan: "Endorsing Only the Arab Elections that Terrorists Will Win"). But when you finally dig through the insufferable smugness of "Israel can't just decide.... because it's afraid of who may win", there are actually real claims being made here - they just happen to be demonstrably false. The full paragraph is:
Israel is concerned about a strong showing by Hamas. That's understandable, but democracy doesn't work this way. Israel allowed Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem to vote in Palestinian Authority elections in 1996 and to vote earlier this year, when Mahmoud Abbas was elected president. Israel can't just decide to take away that right because it's afraid of who may win next time.
Now, when one reads this paragraph, one might well get the impression that the only difference between the election of 1996 and the current election is that Israel had "decided to take away" the ability of Palestinians in East Jerusalem to vote because Israel is "afraid of who may win". This impression, of course, would be false. The real difference between the election of 1996 and the current election is that the current election campaign is in explicit violation of the Oslo Accords while the 1996 one was, well, not:
The Palestinian Authority was established in 1994, pursuant to the Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO. Oslo Interim Agreement, Annex 2, Article III (1995) outlines eligibility for PA elected office:
The nomination of any candidates, parties or coalitions will be refused, and such nomination or registration once made will be canceled, if such candidates, parties or coalitions:
(1) commit or advocate racism; or
(2) pursue the implementation of their aims by unlawful or nondemocratic means.
So three minutes of research demonstrates that the Israeli concern is at least somewhat plausibly about something other than "who may win" (well, it takes three minutes if you know something about the situation - admittedly, we don't expect the NYT to actually know anything about the situations they deign to sagely advise everyone about).The problem isn't necessarily with who is going to win - it's much more basic, and has to do with who is running right now. The reason that Israel is interfering with the election is because it's being conducted in explicit violation of the Palestinians' treaty obligations. Which also means that when the Times urges the "the Bush administration [to] continue to" pressure Israel to back off Hamas, they're urging that the United States abandon its Oslo commitments (old slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print"; new slogan: "Endorsing Only the Arab Elections that Violate US Treaty Obligations").
Not that it matters at this point, but obviously the paragraph that includes the line "many of the Palestinians who voted for Hamas in the municipal elections did so not because they approve of Islamist terrorism" is either trivial or misleading. If all that's meant is that Palestinians can like an organization which has built its entire existence on destroying Israel for other reasons ("Mussolini made the trains run on time!"), then the writers owe each reader the 1.5 seconds of their life that it took to learn that you can like an organization for reasons in addition to the reason you already like them. If it was supposed to not so subtly imply that Palestinians don't support terrorists, then it's kind of wrong: as of two weeks ago, 65% of the Palestinian public supports terrorist attacks against Israel. Of course, the editorial is unclear whether it's trying to be trivial or misleading (plausible deniability is a beautiful thing). But one thing is certain - the NYT editorial board thinks letting Hamas have access to international legitimacy and billions in aid is at least worth trying out. Old slogan: "All the News That's Fit to Print"; new slogan: "Endorsing Only the Arab Elections that Threaten Israeli Security".
[Cross-posted at IsraPundit]
