Worse even than the NY Times, possibly on the same level as the UK Guardian, I give you the Los Angeles Times:
Anyone who follows the news is familiar with how this cycle works. It might begin with a Palestinian child dying while stopped at an Israeli army checkpoint on his way to the hospital. In response, an enraged Palestinian shoots into a crowd of Israeli soldiers at a bus stop. To show that it will not tolerate such behavior, an Israeli army helicopter then fires a missile into an apartment building in Gaza, targeting militants but killing civilians as well, after which outraged Palestinians fire a rocket into Israel, which in turn leads the Israelis to tighten whatever embargo or travel restrictions or security rules are in place at the moment. That increases Palestinian rage still further.
Needless to say, the cycle doesn’t end there but continues until, after a while, it becomes completely impossible to say with any authority who began the hostilities or to distinguish actions from reactions. — Editorial, LA Times, 3/14/2011
Is it possible that they still think this way? Leaving aside the fact that the story about the “Palestinian child dying” probably was made up from whole cloth, and that the “enraged Palestinian” was probably a member of an organized terrorist militia, is it possible that they really can’t distinguish between terrorism and efforts to stop it?
Was the Israeli missile fired into a random apartment building like Hamas’ Qassams, or was it aimed at a terrorist operative who was already responsible for the deaths of tens of Israelis, and who was intending to kill more?
Is “Palestinian rage” primarily a reaction to Israeli counter-terror activities or is it fed by the constant antisemitic and anti-Israel propaganda that emanates from Hamas, our ‘partners’ in Fatah and every Arab country? Are Israeli “security rules” punitive retaliation or are they intended to protect Israelis?
You know the answers to all these questions, but the Times has an agenda: to prove that Palestinian Arab society is ‘normal’, and deserves to be given a state taken from the historical Jewish national home.
But Palestinian Arab society is not normal. Its leadership has created a nation in which monsters are venerated, like Samir Kuntar and Dalal Mughrabi.
The editorial continues:
Which is worse — stabbing children to death or building new houses in West Bank settlements? The answer is obvious. But that’s not the point. The point is that no matter how abhorrent the murders are, it serves no purpose to aggravate the provocation that led to them in the first place. How will building more houses for Israelis in the midst of the West Bank, in settlements that are almost universally acknowledged to violate international law, do anything other than keep the crisis going?
I honestly wonder which the writer thought was worse, in his heart of hearts. After all, the children were Jewish ‘settler’ children, international lawbreakers. What would he say after a few beers? But never mind. Let’s deal with the argument:
The vicious murder of the Fogel family was a deliberate act of terrorism, both in the fact and the manner of its commission. The intent was to deter Jews from living in the Land of Israel. The more violent the act, the more effective it is.
One of the first things that you learn in elementary psychology is that if you want to extinguish an unwanted behavior, you have to stop rewarding it. The Times thinks that Israel should give them what they want:
… the Israeli government should be in the business of calming tensions, not stoking them, and of removing obstacles to peace rather than constructing them.
If the response to this crime is the removal of ‘obstacles’ — settlements, checkpoints, whatever — then there will be more, not less, terrorism. After all, they will see that it gets them what they want.
Let’s give the Arabs credit for rationality, no matter how twisted their expression of it. To stop terrorism, we should make it unproductive for them.
So, therefore, what better response could there be for Israel than to build more homes? And it’s nonviolent!
The Times tells us that settlements are the “provocation” that led to the murders. Here’s another story about similar terrorist murders that took place in 2002:
Kibbutz Metzer is situated near the West Bank in Green line Israel. The Kibbutz was founded in 1953 by Argentinian members of the Hashomer Hatzair movement and is part of the leftist Kibbutz Artzi Federation. Metzer is located east of Hadera in the “triangle” opposite Tul Karm in the the West Bank. The Kibbutz was founded in Green Line Israel. Its members oppose post-1967 expansionism and are leaders in the Israeli Peace movement.
On November 10, 2002 during the Al-Aqsa Intifada, a member of the Palestinian Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades (then affiliated with the Tanzim) entered Metzer at night and murdered five people, including two young children and their mother, and the Kibbutz Secretary Itsik. The victims were all shot by one Sirhan Sirhan, who was allegedly rewarded with $20,000 by Palestinian President Yasser Arafat and was later killed by Israeli forces. — Ami Isseroff, “Metzer Massacre”
Not only were the Metzer victims living within the 1949 lines, they favored giving up the territories! I suppose the Times would have found some other “provocation” to account for this atrocity, just as they would have found one for all the pre-1967 terrorism, or for the 1967 war itself.
The truth is that Jews living in the Land of Israel is, and always has been, all the provocation they need.