I honestly don't know why I bother reading the NYT Op-Eds anymore. In today's copy of the world's most pretentious birdcage liner, Nicholas Kristof pens a confusing and self-contradictory essay about the "double standards" of the U.S., Israel and Palestine in the Middle East. I'm too tired to unpack the entire article, but here's a sample of what I'm talking about:
This week's hearings at the International Court of Justice on Israel's "security fence" raise again one of the most sensitive questions for America: are we engaging in double standards in the Middle East?
Note the sneer quotes. And he's kidding himself if he thinks that the proceedings before the ICJ have mattered enough to anyone to provoke actual thought.
One of the central reasons for anti-Americanism in Iraq, as well as elsewhere in the Islamic world and in Europe, is a conviction that Americans are hypocrites for invading Iraq after Saddam Hussein violated U.N. resolutions, while donating billions of dollars to Israel as Ariel Sharon defies other U.N. resolutions.
No, Nick, one of the central reasons for anti-Americanism in the Islamic world is that they hate us for our success, progress and freedom, while they're stuck in the 12th Century because any further progress would defy the will of Allah. They're indoctrinated to believe that killing Americans, especially American Jews, just because they're Americans and/or Jews, will get them into heaven. Notice also that, as has been true in the Times since before the liberation of Iraq, "Europe" consists only of France and Germany. God, that's tiresome.
Further, it's not hypocritical to support Sharon while deposing Saddam; the latter murdered tens of thousands of his own people, while the former seeks to protect his citizens from bloodthirsty terrorists. That's hardly the same thing. It sounds to me like we're backing the right horse.
President Bush has been cozying up to Mr. Sharon, despite his incursions into the West Bank, his use of settlements to grab Palestinian lands and his barrier that cuts off Palestinian farmers from their farms. Anyone who goes to Israel feels the gut fear of bombings that drive such policies, but anyone who goes to Gaza or the West Bank sees the humiliations that spawn bombings and a vicious cycle of violence.
If I understand Kristof correctly -- and I'd like to think that I do -- he's saying the fence is bad because it prevents homicide bombings that the pals should be allowed to carry out because they're "repressed." Can he be serious? How can the NYT's editors not grasp the utter idiocy (anti-semitism?) of statements like this? Why is it OK to blow up buses full of innocent people because you feel "repressed"? Then, later in the piece, Kristof contradicts himself by grudgingly admitting that Arabs have it better in Israel under Sharon's rule than anywhere else in the Middle East. WTF?
The rest of the piece is more of the same, but I really don't have the energy. Kristof and Chomsky should get together and go bowling.
As an counterpoint, compare Kristof's stupid screed with this thoughtful piece from the Washington Post; while I may not agree with everything the author says, at least the author recognizes that the pals better get on board with a peace plan (highly unlikely) or get out of the way. I like that the author acknowledges that the wall is the most effective way for Israel to protect itself (barring, of course an actual peace plan that the pals won't reneg on . . . as though that will ever happen). The author also recognizes that the "International Court of Justice" is a farce, a pathetic joke with no actual or perceived authority over Israel, which I find refreshing.
Comments