It isn't all that often that US newspapers - or newspapers anywhere for that matter - at least challenge Israel and its actions. The NY Times has been reticent to even criticise Israel.
It is therefore interesting that in this US election year the Times does editorialise in "Perils of an Israeli Transition"on what Israel ought to be considering in a new PM post Ehud Olmert's departure:
"History is unlikely to be kind to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. He disastrously mismanaged the 2006 Lebanon war. And now, besmirched by financial scandals, he has announced plans to leave office as soon as a successor can be confirmed.
Mr. Olmert does, however, understand that a two-state solution with the Palestinians is vital for Israel’s security. We hope that his successor does as well and brings a greater sense of urgency to the negotiations.
There has always been a wide gap between what Mr. Olmert understands about the need for a peace settlement and what he has done about it. Merely meeting the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, for periodic talks is not enough.
Without jeopardizing its security, Israel could take important steps to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians and give them a real stake in peace. In his remaining weeks or months in power, Mr. Olmert could burnish his legacy, and the prospects for an agreement, if he announced a full freeze on expansion of Jewish settlements and reduced the number of roadblocks in the West Bank that are strangling the Palestinian economy."
Arab countries and George W don't escape advice either. Read the Editorial here.
It is therefore interesting that in this US election year the Times does editorialise in "Perils of an Israeli Transition"on what Israel ought to be considering in a new PM post Ehud Olmert's departure:
"History is unlikely to be kind to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel. He disastrously mismanaged the 2006 Lebanon war. And now, besmirched by financial scandals, he has announced plans to leave office as soon as a successor can be confirmed.
Mr. Olmert does, however, understand that a two-state solution with the Palestinians is vital for Israel’s security. We hope that his successor does as well and brings a greater sense of urgency to the negotiations.
There has always been a wide gap between what Mr. Olmert understands about the need for a peace settlement and what he has done about it. Merely meeting the Palestinian Authority president, Mahmoud Abbas, for periodic talks is not enough.
Without jeopardizing its security, Israel could take important steps to improve the lives of ordinary Palestinians and give them a real stake in peace. In his remaining weeks or months in power, Mr. Olmert could burnish his legacy, and the prospects for an agreement, if he announced a full freeze on expansion of Jewish settlements and reduced the number of roadblocks in the West Bank that are strangling the Palestinian economy."
Arab countries and George W don't escape advice either. Read the Editorial here.
Comments