This NY Times staff-ed incoherently responds to the unilateral agenda Israeli voters approved of this week:
We’re not happy with Mr. Olmert’s proposal of a unilateral withdrawal. But at this point, we’re heartened by anything that leads to an Israeli withdrawal from land that the Palestinians must control if the area is ever going to evolve into two peaceful, co-existing states….
While the ultimate solution to the conflict can be only a negotiated one, as opposed to a unilateral drawing of final borders by Israel, a negotiated deal is not going to happen until Hamas repudiates terrorism and recognizes Israel’s right to exist. Hamas has yet to earn itself a seat at the negotiating table. But in the meantime, Israel can start to rid itself of its self-created problem in the West Bank.
So in the absence of a Palestinian negotiating partner, what is the Times really advocating?
A) Israel should unilaterally leave the West Bank “to rid itself of its self-created problem.”
B) Israel should not unilaterally withdraw because “the ultimate solution to the conflict can only be a negotiated one.”
C) Israel should negotiate with Hamas anyway because “the ultimate solution to the conflict can only be a negotiated one.”
D) The Times just looks forward to seeing Israel to leave the West Bank; it doesn’t matter why or how.
