The Warped Mirror: Peace and the media

Ehud Olmert's announcement that he would step down as prime minister after the Kadima primaries in September triggered a veritable flood of commentary in the international media. Many of the commentators worried that Olmert's resignation could have a negative impact on the peace process with the Palestinians. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with such concerns, seeing them expressed in so many op-eds illustrated all too well that when it comes to peace between Israelis and Palestinians, it's mainly, if not only, the Israelis that count for the media.

If you ever mention this in a debate, the response will go something like: "But it is Israel that occupies the Palestinian territories, and it is Israel that has to withdraw for peace" - and the implication tends to be that all that is needed for peace to prevail is that Israel withdraws from the Palestinian territories. If you note that it didn't quite work out this way after Israel withdrew from Gaza three years ago, you should be ready for a long list of excuses, explanations, and accusations along the lines of "Gaza is really still occupied, it's the world's largest open-air prison, and it's all because Israel is unwilling to accept Hamas as the democratically elected Palestinian government."

Arguments like these are common enough on internet debate forums, and they reflect that much of the media coverage on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict focuses on Israel's obligations in any "land-for-peace" deal. The question that is hardly ever asked is how the Palestinians would live up to their end of the bargain, which obliges them to be a peaceful neighbor that doesn't allow militants to use its territory to launch attacks against Israel.

Commentators who worry about the prospects for peace would do well to spare a thought for the question what makes the Israeli electorate tick. The experience of the people of Sderot and other communities near Gaza has obviously only heightened concerns about the security implications of any Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank. In addition, there are still well-founded doubts about the willingness of the Palestinians to truly accept that the two-state solution means that they must recognize Israel on its own terms, i.e. as a Jewish state. Indeed, precisely this demand was rejected by Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas right at the beginning of the current round of negotiations at Annapolis last year.

More recently, the Palestinian unwillingness to allow any reference to Israel as a Jewish state delayed the release of a planned statement at the conclusion of the Paris Mediterranean Union Summit in July. It's worthwhile to read the related report by the Palestinian "International Middle East Media Center" that explains:

The recognition of Israel as a 'Jewish state' has long been a contentious point for the Palestinians, particularly for the democratically-elected Hamas government (a rival to Abbas' Fateh party). Hamas has been unwilling to recognize the Jewish character of the Israeli state, as in doing so, they would deny the right of return to the nearly five million Palestinian refugees that were forced out of their homes into exile when the state of Israel was created on their land in 1947."

So much for the two-state solution. . . What's also noteworthy are the numbers given in the report: "nearly five million Palestinian refugees ... forced out of their homes into exile when the state of Israel was created on their land in 1947."

Given how little interest the international media show in the question how the Palestinian state whose establishment is supposed to bring us all that much closer to world peace will be governed, it didn't make big headlines last week when Salaam Fayad, the first Palestinian Authority (PA) Prime Minister who is really serious about building solid institutions, had to ask the World Bank for emergency funding because his government is essentially bankrupt. To be sure, the PA under Fayad was promised $7.7b. at a donors' conference in Paris last December, but the Arab states - who are supposedly all supporting the "Arab Peace Initiative" - have so far paid only a paltry 15% of what they promised, while the US remains the largest single state donor to the PA.

Instead of the replacement of a prime minister in a democracy, it is these developments, as well as the renewed bloody fighting between Hamas and Fatah, that should be the main concern of those who worry about the prospects for peace.