What should I, as an American who'd like to see peace in the Middle East but would really prefer it not come about via a method that would make the ghost of Hitler ectoplasm in his pants, take away from that article?
If I may change the subject from the conflict itself for one post, and catch you in the word (as they say in Hebrew) about you reading an article in the English-language edition of
Ha'aretz:
The conclusion you should take away from that article is that you should stop reading Ha'aretz.
"Ha'aretz", especially "Ha'aretz" in English, is just about the
worst source you can use to know what is going on. It is by far the
least popular major newspaper in Israel.
The reason?
Every single major prediction it made in its view of the situation of the middle east was wrong. (I don't mean about what individual politicians will say or do, but about what the Palestinians in general want). It might, I suppose, suddenly begin to be correct about the future, but let us speak about what we know.
Partial list:
1). Supporting the Oslo accords in 1993 because Arafat "made a strategic decision to make peace";
2). Claiming that the second Intifada is just because Israel didn't offer enough, to saying at the height of the Intifada that Israel must give up because "there is no military solution to terrorism" (well, no perfect solution, but the only thing that worked to
any degree in defeating the Intifada was the seperation wall and the major anti-terror operations);
3). Claiming Hizbullah is interested in "long-term cease-fire"... a week before the 2006 war;
4). Claiming withdrawing from Gaza will bring security and peace because Hamas only wants the Jews dead because of "the settlements" and now the world will "be with us", and that the right is just "scaring the public" with its claims that there will be "missiles on Ahskelon" due to this (needless to say that's exactly what happened);
...and many, many other such predictions.
Now, Ha'aretz is in favor of a Palestinian state. Well, whoopy-do. That, alone, is very strong evidence it would be a disaster for Israel. As Parkinson of "Parkinson's Law" fame said, there is no such thing as a man who is always right, but there
is such thing as a man who is always wrong.
Ha'aretz comes as close to that as is humanely possible.
Why has Ha'aretz learned nothing? Why is it constantly in the wrong? The hint is in its Hebrew motto: "The paper for thinking people" (
Ha'iton le'anashim hoshvim). That is, it sees itself as the paper of the small minority of "thinking people" who "know" the truth -- that the Palestinians "really" want peace. Outside (perhaps) academia and other insulated hotbeds of "politically correct" thought which it exemplifies (e.g., certain areas of Tel Aviv), it's circulation is virtually nil.
Its English edition is not meant to educated the non-Hebrew speaking world about what is going on in Israel. It is, consciously or unconsciously, a paper meant to project to the world the image that they, the "thinking people", are the "good Jews": "Look! Look! Not
all Jews are evil right-wing extremists! Only the 96% of the Jewish population that disagrees with us for some reason,
just because we were almost 100% wrong before! Can you believe these
right-wing extremists?". Ha'aretz editors care nothing for facts, only for projecting the "correct" image.
They are the modern-day equivelant of the
Hofjude (the "court Jew") -- with the important exception that the court Jew, however much he tried to ingratiate himself with the local ruler by discarding all "extremist right-wing" signs of his Judaism and adopting the "moderate" and "sensible" way of whatever was popular in the local court of his time, would usually at least try to help other Jews when possible. As for
Ha'aretz, they positively desire Israel to be punished by the world for daring to disagree with them.
For this reason, the entire English edition is invariably about:
(a) How evil,
evil Netanyahu is and how his policies will lead Israel to desturction, and/or how Netanyahu had finally seen the light and is doing what they long ago said he should;
(b) How wonderful (despite all the "right wing propaganda", of course) the Palestinians are; and
(c) Total, complete silence as to any reminder about how wrong and disasterous their recommended policies were in the past, even as those policies, just like the ones they push today, were invariably described as the only "rational" and "moderate" ones, indeed the only ones that will save Israel, and how all the "hysterical warnings" from the "insane right" turned out to be 100% correct.
Let me put it this way: do you read the paper of the American Communist party?
No?
...exactly.
