From my friend Haviv Rettig Gur: This really was a shocking thing for The New York Times to publish. As people like Jodi Rudoren and Ethan Bronner know well, and presumably could have informed the NYT opinion folks if asked, the one damn thing we Israelis can boast of without any reservation or hesitation is that no one is silenced in our frenetically combative politics. Its one thing to lean heavily to one side in the debate over Netanyahus intentions or the significance of settlements. But its another thing altogether to publish a fringe voice spouting untruths -- such as a declaration by an anti-Zionist activist who publishes regularly in Israel without interruption or interference that it is somehow not possible to do just that. This is not an instance of a newspaper courageously publishing a broad range of controversial views, but rather of one willfully engaging in disingenuous political activism. Thats legitimate behavior for a political campaign, I guess, but it aint journalism. Journalism is the art of wrestling with facts and perspective, not declaiming fantasies. It demands clarity of judgment, self-criticism, and above all, honesty. It is a sacred trust precisely because it is so hard, requiring the overcoming of ones baser desire for tendentious vilification. Put another way: any idiot on the Internet can rant about their favorite bad guy. Journalists are only valuable if they overcome that urge, if they refuse to settle for the comfortable, well-worn mental grooves of the existing debate and its simplicities. The New York Times achieves nothing by pushing its pages outside the boundaries of seriousness. It cannot pressure Israel to change if it merely convinces Israelis that it fundamentally misunderstands us. It is not right-wing or defensive to suggest that Israelis, Palestinians and the Times itself would be better served by journalism that tries to get into our real-life, three-dimensional heads instead of flattening us into moralistic cartoons. Indeed, it is a sad testament to the state of present-day journalism that one of the most respected newspapers in the world is so frightened of endorsing Israel that it refuses to make an honest effort to understand it. Governments engage in intelligence gathering because they know -- sadly, far better than journalists -- that the opposite is true: that sympathy is critical to understanding, and understanding is critical to changing or defeating an opponent. It is an uncomfortable but nevertheless unavoidable truth of this conflict that Palestinian independence cannot be achieved against the wishes of the Israeli public. After the terrible results of the Lebanon withdrawal in 2000 and the Gaza withdrawal of 2005, there is no amount of international moralizing or boycotting that can convince Israelis to sign up for a West Bank withdrawal unless they are convinced it is safe to do so. Netanyahu doesnt win consecutive elections because hes adored by Israelis, but because they trust him not to make the mistakes of the past. In other words, the right hasnt won the long game in this country so much as the left has lost it. Most Israelis actually support a Palestinian state in the West Bank -- even as they dread it. If the international community (and the opinion page of the Times) wish to impact this conflict, relentlessly telling Israelis lies about themselves hardly seems an effective way to go about it. The debate in Israel has moved on from the moral dichotomies and assertions of the 1990s to the hard practicalities of keeping and securing any peace that might be reached. To end this long rant-against-rants, then, my suggestion to the Times is a simple one: instead of condemning itself to a role as an irrelevant regurgitator of moralizing fictions that defame and alienate the only audience that matters in this conflict, why not take up the tougher but more promising role of hard analysis and fresh, sympathetic perspectives on the conflict? That doesnt mean you need to surrender your liberalism or your moral call for Palestinian independence -- but it does mean your criticism of Israeli politics must give your readers the tools to grapple with the fact, demonstrated in every poll on the subject for over a decade, that most Israelis both desire and reject Palestinian independence, simultaneously. It means addressing the devastating impact that the implosion of the regions multi-ethnic polities and the rise of radical Islamism have had on the Palestinian cause. It means asking some fundamental questions of Hamas and Fatah, such as: Is it even possible to establish an independent Palestine that isnt integrated economically with Israel? To have an impact on us, you dont have to let us off the hook, but you do have to convince us you possess even a basic understanding of the problems we face and the experienced that have informed our responses. Publishing opeds arguing that Israel -- Israel! -- silences dissent is not a convincing start.
Posted on: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 00:34:55 +0000