It was nothing if not predictable. We refer to the near-hysterical media reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement on Monday that if he were returned to office he would not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Typical was New York Times Jerusalem bureau chief Jodi Rudoren, who wrote:
The statement reversed Mr. Netanyahu’s endorsement of two-sate solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in a 2009 speech at Bar Ilan University, and fulfilled many world leaders’ suspicions that he would never really serious about peace negotiations. If he manages to eke out a fourth term, the new stance would further fray Mr. Netanyahu’s ruinous relationship with the Obama administration and heighten tension with European countries already frustrated with the stalled peace process.
Yet what Mr. Netanyahu actually said, according to the Times itself, was “I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to…radical Islam against the state of Israel.”
Note the word “today.” Can anyone really blame a prime minister of Israel for suggesting that the Gaza experience dictates the course of Israeli diplomacy with regard to surrendering of land to the Palestinians at this point in time?
If nothing really changes in the hearts and minds of the Palestinians, is Israel obligated to provide them and its other adversaries launching pads for attacks? Is Israel not allowed to insist that its security issues be resolved in any deal with the Palestinians at any time? And does anyone really think a state run by Mahmoud Abbas would survive even a month before being toppled by Hamas?
Indeed, Mr. Netanyahu’s chief challenger, Yitzchak Herzog, said on March 17:
The dynamic of Middle East politics is unpredictable and rapidly changing, therefore the decision on the character of the negotiation will depend on who is on the other side and whether there is a real partner for renegotiations.
Sounds similar to many of our own editorials but the Herzog statement didn’t get much attention. Media outlets like The New York Times have too much at stake to forgo their narrative of a warmongering Israeli prime minister standing in the way of peace.