Monday, September 06, 2010

About that Time cover story....

A number of people are upset over Time magazine's cover story for the September 13th issue:
I would like to read the entire article (still not online) to give an honest opinion, but from what we can see so far it seems fairly certain that Time magazine sees no distinction between "peace" and "the peace process."

For example, while the cover talks about "peace," the blurb describing the article says:

The Good Life And Its Dangers (Cover)
Israelis feel prosperous, secure--and disengaged from the peace process. Is that wise?
The cherry-picked example given in the online article teaser says:

In the week that three Presidents, a King and their own Prime Minister gather at the White House to begin a fresh round of talks on peace between Israel and the Palestinians, the truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter. They're otherwise engaged; they're making money; they're enjoying the rays of late summer. A watching world may still define their country by the blood feud with the Arabs whose families used to live on this land and whether that conflict can be negotiated away, but Israelis say they have moved on.
From what we can see, Time is making a major mistake that many on the world are making.

To say that Israel, or Israelis, don't care about "peace" is so off-base that it borders on calumny. But to say that Israelis don't care about an inherently flawed "peace process" that has resulted in the deaths of thousands of people over the years is perfectly reasonable.

The title on the cover, and the cover itself, are very clearly implying that Israelis do not care about peace itself. The Time editors do not seem to understand basic English. Right now, there is peace, by and large.

On the other hand, Israelis know that the almost automatic result of giving more concessions is terror, not peace.

Hezbollah was not dismantled when its supposed raison d'etre disappeared when Israel withdrew behind UN-drawn borders - on the contrary, it was strengthened. Hamas didn't get weakened by Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza - it moved into the vacuum left by an impotent PA, that just happens to be Israel's "peace partner." What person it their right mind would support moving into act 3 of this drama?

Meanwhile, Abbas himself said "[i]n the West Bank we have a good reality . . . the people are living a normal life." Hate to break it to Time, but that is the definition of peace - Israelis and Palestinian Arabs are living together, cooperating on security, and the economies of both groups are improving.

Making more parts of the West Bank Judenrein is not going to improve things; evidence indicates that the opposite is true.

There are many other reasons to be skeptical of the peace process. Last time I listed them, I had 16 of them, and they are not going away.

This does not mean that Israel doesn't care about peace. Israel's actions since the Intifada have reduced the number of victims of terror - and number of victims of IDF actions in the West Bank - by a huge amount. Israelis can travel on buses and go to restaurants without fear. West Bank Arabs are also prospering.

Isn't that what peace is all about?