WASHINGTON — New York is a hard town to be anything but adamantly pro-Israeli. While visiting my father here for a few days, the local New York Times is daily filled with full-page pro-Israeli advertisements soliciting donations to save the state of Israel. Other full-page ads urge New York Jews to attend a pro-Israeli rally in Washington next weekend. Here television and printed reports of the horrors occurring in the Mideast not only focus on the Israelis, but also tend to dismiss the Palestinians. Reports on the Israeli-Palestinian war cite the Israeli casualties in the first, lead paragraphs. If the Palestinians are mentioned, their causalities is buried somewhere in the middle of the story.
This prompted my 82-year-old father to ask me the obvious: “Why are the Israelis always mentioned first? That’s not fair.” Any wonder why this man is my mentor?
There are, however, glimmers of fairness — most often found, to their credit, in the New York Times lead editorials. In an editorial entitled: “Bulldozing Hope in the Mideast,” the Times is surprisingly frank in its assessment of the situation on the ground:
“One tragic consequence of this month’s Israeli military offensive across the West Bank has been the heavy blow it inflicted on a Palestinian economy and civil society that had begun to show signs of life,” it notes. “If these two proud and talented peoples are ever to live side by side in peace and cooperation, one obvious prerequisite will be a Palestinian economy that generates jobs and prosperity for its people and civil institutions that can broaden debate...”
“Israel’s long-term interest lies in nurturing Palestinian development, not demolishing it. While Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s determination to strike back at terrorists is
understandable, Israel’s destruction of Palestinian homes, businesses and public utilities is not. Knocking down houses, destroying electricity pylons and interfering with
health care, as Israeli forces have done across the West Bank, cannot be justified by any compelling military need,” says the Times.
“... Israel claims to have proof that (Yasser Arafat) has not only failed to oppose terrorism but has directly authorized it. Still, Israeli military tactics are responsible for much of the civilian destruction,” the paper observes, adding:
“... Mr. Sharon needs to make it clear to his commanders that Palestinian civilians are not Israel’s enemy and that their lives, livelihoods and property deserve respect.
“... Mr. Sharon should belatedly heed President Bush’s call for immediate withdrawal. Continuing this offensive may yield more terrorist arrests, but at grievous cost to Israel’s
long-term interests,” notes the Times. Another NY Times editorial, entitled “Aiding the Enemy,” by Nicholas Kristof, is also critical of Sharon: “Who would have imagined that anyone could turn a vacillating dictator like Yasir Arafat into a hero, while also sowing discord between Israel and its greatest ally?
“Ariel Sharon has managed to do both. And by defying President Bush’s appeals and using helicopters paid for with United States tax dollars to destroy Palestinian homes
and lives, he is also undermining American credibility in the region,” Kristof observes.
“... Unfortunately, Mr. Sharon has made a career of responding to Palestinian outrages by pursuing rash military solutions that ultimately harm Israel rather than bolster it.
Kristof reviews Sharon’s “harsh tactics” against Palestinians in the past, then notes: “Criticizing Mr. Sharon’s harsh tactics is easy. The harder question is what Israel should do to defeat terrorism. The answer, which Colin Powell is trying to deliver, is straightforward: The only way out will be a political deal creating a Palestinian state.
Kristof ends with the same theme of Israel’s security as the NY Times lead editorialist, which is: “...By turning a menace like Mr. Arafat into a hero all over the Arab world, Mr. Sharon is creating incentives for terrorism and undermining Israel’s long-term security.”
Another editorial in today’s Times, notes that Sharon has hoodwinked President Bush:
“Some administration officials acknowledge that Mr. Sharon took advantage of Mr. Bush’s generalized statements of support for Israeli policies,” writes Steven Weisman, adding that America’s president is walking the thin line of his political future: “There comes a time in many administration when presidents feel compelled to make politically difficult demands on Israel.... (but) Mr. Bush has moved so quickly from Israel’s unquestioning sympathizer to its insistent challenger that he has stunned both his allies and critics.” This idea may be hard for some to swallow, but Weisman expands his idea: “... Mr. Bush has not changed his approach so much as adjusted to changed circumstances. Mr. Sharon’s drive against the Palestinians has turned out to be more brutal than expected, and the horrified reaction by Arab nations, and the horrified reaction by Arab nations... was more negative than the administration anticipated. “Other officials agree,” according to Weisman, “that the administration took too long to become more directly involved in the Middle East and has paid the price for it.”
