[W]ith so much of the Middle East still convulsing from the effects of the Arab Spring, Mr. Kerry’s efforts [on peacemaking] raise questions about the Obama administration’s priorities at a time of renewed regional unrest.After the perfunctory quotes from people who note that focusing on Israel when the entire region is aflame is a bit silly, the Times goes back to its basic premise:
Former administration officials defend that conviction. Mr. Kerry’s focus, they say, makes sense precisely because of the chaos elsewhere. With little leverage over Egypt and deep reluctance about intervening in Syria, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one place that the United States can still exert influence, and perhaps even produce a breakthrough.But the threat to Abbas comes from the very people who would ignore, and torpedo, any "peace" agreement that doesn't result in the destruction of Israel. Right now their complaints against Abbas are that he is collaborating with the hated Zionists; how exactly will an agreement mollify them?
“You don’t have instability between the Israelis and Palestinians right now,” said Dennis B. Ross, a former senior adviser to Mr. Obama on the Middle East. “But if you don’t act, there’s a risk that the Palestinian Authority will collapse, leaving a vacuum. And if we know one thing about vacuums in the Middle East, they are never filled with good things.”
Moreover, what guarantee is there that after his death the entire agreement wouldn't be abrogated? Or that Hamas wouldn't win the next election, as they did the last?
In short, what evidence is there that the Arabs want real peace?
The NYT's real cluelessness comes from this paragraph:
While resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not the magic bullet for the region that some once thought, it still resonates widely, whether among the crowds in Tahrir Square or the militants of Hezbollah, who cite Israel in rallying around President Bashar al-Assad of Syria.
Ah. The fact that Hezbollah and Egyptian mobs want to destroy Israel is reason for Israel to give up vital land, natural resources and defensive depth.
Do they even read what they are writing? An agreement wouldn't calm these Israel haters - it would embolden them! Egypt has a peace agreement with Israel and there are still people on Tahrir Square insulting Morsi with poster showing him to be a "Zionist." How exactly has Camp David tempered their opinion of Israel?
The NYT has this insane idea that Israel-hatred, which is of course a result of and not a source of antisemitism, would be somehow reduced if there was a piece of paper. Yet the two most antisemitic nations on the planet are the ones that Israel has a peace agreement with. Jodi Rudoren's citing the hate against Israel in Tahrir Square as proof that a peace agreement is important is 180 degrees from the truth - it is proof that a peace agreement is worthless in reducing hate for Israel. Not to mention the pure insanity of mentioning Hizballah as supporting evidence - a group that would do everything is could to destroy any agreement.
The "peace process" has nothing to do with peace. Along with "linkage," it is an irrational, almost religious belief system, one that doesn't look even one day beyond the messianic goal of signing a piece of paper. But some, like the NYT, are so emotionally invested in the idea that they can twist any facts to support their belief system in "peace" and the utopian idea that it would cause people who rabidly hate Israel to change their own belief systems.
(h/t EBoZ)