Looking With Both Eyes
The media's one-sided view distorts the realities of the Middle East
Media accounts that make Israel the guilty party rarely look at Oslo to compare records. Readers would never guess that Israel has lived up to its obligations and the Palestinians have not. Israel has released female terrorists. It has transferred disputed moneys to the PA. It has followed Hebron by proposing to transfer an area greater than Gaza to Palestinian control. The PA, by contrast, escapes censure for failing to revise the Palestinian national charter and failing to restrain violence; it is immune from criticism for failing to transfer suspected terrorists to Israel and failing to limit the Palestinian police force to the number specified, even within Hebron. George Will, one of the few who have it right, calls the Palestinian commitments "a liar's promises."
It would seem, from the attitude of the media, that Israel can escape moral outrage only by embracing Arafat's interpretation of Oslo and then making ever more concessions. As one commentator put it, "Israel is being asked to unilaterally abide by Oslo-plus while the Palestinians feel free to act as if they had signed Oslo-minus."
Newt Gingrich is on the defensive these days, yet he is one of the few who have seen what is happening and have had the courage to define the central issues: "There's a core principle here that we have forgotten ... It is extraordinarily dangerous to confuse the aggressor and the victim. It is extraordinarily dangerous to confuse the terrorist and the democracy. It is extraordinary to always impose the burden on those who are your friends, because you're too timid to tell the truth to those who are your enemies."
Here is a standard for American policy. We must stand more forcefully and publicly against Arafat's stealthy resort to violence. The moral blindness manifest in so much of the media is not in the interests of the Palestinian people, most of whom yearn for peace and progress. It encourages Arafat to continue his course, and that can have only one result: stiffening resistance among Israelis, who can rightly ask, "What is this thing called peace?"
The United States can do little in this climate. We are properly declining to sponsor immediate entry into "final status" talks. They offer minimal chances of success at a time when the issues are so difficult and sensitive that even moderate Arabs and moderate Israelis have little hope of building a bridge. We can only hope to manage flare-ups day to day, not yet move to solutions. The promotion of crises by the use of violence, aided and abetted by the anti-Israeli press, will unwind Oslo with increasing speed. At the very least the United States cannot allow Oslo to be perpetually rewritten by equating blatant violations on one side with actions that, however distasteful to the other, are at least within Israel's negotiated rights under the agreement. This is a time to be cool. When the Middle East dials 911, it should not automatically be put through to the president of the United States.
advertisement
