OxBlog

# Posted 9:11 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

OXBLOG DEFENDS NYT: Yesterday, I expressed surprise at my own agreement with this anti-Sharon editorial in the NYT.

In contrast, Martin Kimel decided that the editorial was so bad that it deserved a full-frontal fisking. (Martin doesn't have permalinks, so you'll have to scroll down. His post is the fourth from the top on June 12th.)

In short, I agree with absolutely nothing Martin says, even though his arguments are quite intelligent and well-composed. In fact, I even entertained thoughts of counterfisking Martin's post because it got me so riled up.

But for the sake of clarity and brevity, I think I'll just respond to a few of his points directly

Martin defends Sharon from the charge of undermining Abu Mazen's authority by saying that Mazen had none in the first place. But that's just plain wrong. Until the recent attacks, the Palestinian government accepted Mazen's replacement of Arafat as its bridge to Israel and the United States. Now that status is threatened.
Martin argues that Abu Mazen's refusal to use violence against Hamas is a violation of his commitment to stop Palestinian terror. Instead, Mazen has sought to negotiate an end to suicide attacks. What Martin doesn't consider is that Mazen hasn't had enough time to consolidate his authority to the point where he can launch a military assault on Hamas without provoking a popular backalsh.
Martin mocks the NYT's call for Israeli restraint as nothing more than an assertion that "Israel should just sit back and watch its people get slaughtered." However, that argument presumes both that Sharon had no other option than to launch targeted assassinations and that such assassinations improve Israeli security.

As Jackson Diehl points out, there was no security rationale for Sharon's decision to target Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi for assassination just six days after the Aqaba talks. Israel could have targeted Rantisi at any time in the past year, but chose not to.

In addition, Diehl observes that Sharon has a habit of launching high-profile assassination attempts in the midst of every Israeli-Palestinian ceasefire. Sharon knows that the immediate response to such attempts will consist of more suicide attacks.

While forgoing a violent response to Palestinian terror compromises the valid principle that one must punish the perpetrators of such barbaric acts, the fact is that a less violent response (border closings, etc.) would have saved Israeli lives.

Thanks to the United States, Israel was given its first chance in 15 years to negotiate with someone other than Yasser Arafat. Had Sharon recognized this historic opportunity and shown proper restraint, Palestinians might now think of Abu Mazen as the one man capable of protecting them from Israeli vengeance. At the same time, Palestinians might have begun to recognize that Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aksa are not defending them from Israeli brutality, but destorying all prospects of peace.

I say "might" cautiously and without great confidence. I recognize the validity of the hawks' argument that restraint often ensures further victimization. Thus restraint entails risk. But for the first time in many years, that risk was worth taking.

UPDATE: Michael Totten and Reason of Voice -- both of whom are often to my left on foreign policy -- agree with Martin that the NYT editorial is nothing more than a call for Israel to passively accept the murder of its citizens.

Sadly, the point may be moot since the prospects for peace are now so dim.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion