A New York Times editorial writer proves to be schooled in baseball and perhaps train travel, but s/he needs to bone up on the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
On Friday, November 19, the Times once again chimed in on Israel's future in an editorial headlined, "Mr. Sharon, You're Up at Bat." The Times puts the onus on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, backs creation of an independent Palestinian state and indicates support for sharing Jerusalem.
In the process, the editorial repeatedly alludes to baseball terms and once to trains, as in "encourage him (Sharon) to board the peace train with Mr. (President) Bush, Mr. (Tony) Blair and Mr. (Mahmoud) Abbas."
The peace train? Make up your own jokes.
The Times editorial writer not only praises Bush and Abbas, the new head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, but calls plays to characterize their historic accomplishments - Bush for pursuing creation of a Palestinian state and Abbas who "has thus far resisted any urge to toughen up his image with Palestinian hardliners through unnecessary anti-Israel speeches."
The editorial adds, "If this were baseball, President Bush would have hit a single, and Mr. Abbas a double. Now it's time for Ariel Sharon to step up to the plate."
The Times editorial writer neglects to consider one element: this conflict is no game. In the last four years alone, over 1,000 Israelis have died. If this is a game, it is a game that has lasted for more than a century and shows little indication of improving.
The death of Yasser Arafat opens a window of opportunity, but a very narrow window of opportunity. Jewish letter-writers blasted the editorial the next day: "How can you credit Abbas? with a double?" wrote Eli Spielman of Teaneck, New Jersey. "If you want to give him a single for setting an election date, fine, but you cannot award him an extra base for only having 'thus far resisted any urge to toughen up his image with Palestinian hardliners through unnecessary anti-Israel speeches.'"
Added Yaakov Har-Oz of Beit Shemesh, Israel: "Before urging Sharon to 'swing for the fences' with a Palestinian leadership that is not only new and untested but is also not even chosen, could we all possibly have the minimal patience needed to make sure that the new pitcher isn't throwing the kinds of spitballs, brushbacks and beanballs that Arafat threw?"
Certainly a peace process should be pursued, but cautiously. The Times editorial writer - like too many other people - wants Israel and the Palestinians to move swiftly. In fact, people are framing the question for the future as to the borders of a Palestinian state. The question should be: What is the best course of action? Any resolution should emerge from good-faith negotiations.
After four years of vicious warfare, who in Israel would trust the Palestinians with an independent state? The burden of proof is on them.
While the editorial makes some reasonable points, it presupposes the prospect of a shared Jerusalem: "A peace deal will be possible only if a Palestinian leader can establish enough authority to prepare the Palestinian people for what they must accept if they ever want an independent state: A Jerusalem shared between the two countries?"
What? Now they have Israel sharing Jerusalem with another country. I'm far from convinced that a Palestinian state is viable, and they're talking about a shared Jerusalem? That, too, must be hashed out in negotiations if there is any chance for that to become reality. The Palestinian negotiators will need to explain why they need Jerusalem.
For the record, two caveats: I have been harshly critical of the Sharon administration due to his gross mismanagement of this conflict.
Also, I read the New York Times each day and regard it to be a great newspaper - though there are many people who would dispute that. Some of the conclusions in Friday's editorial should not go unchallenged.
Whoever wrote some of the passages in this editorial hit some foul balls.
On Friday, November 19, the Times once again chimed in on Israel's future in an editorial headlined, "Mr. Sharon, You're Up at Bat." The Times puts the onus on Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, backs creation of an independent Palestinian state and indicates support for sharing Jerusalem.
In the process, the editorial repeatedly alludes to baseball terms and once to trains, as in "encourage him (Sharon) to board the peace train with Mr. (President) Bush, Mr. (Tony) Blair and Mr. (Mahmoud) Abbas."
The peace train? Make up your own jokes.
The Times editorial writer not only praises Bush and Abbas, the new head of the Palestine Liberation Organization, but calls plays to characterize their historic accomplishments - Bush for pursuing creation of a Palestinian state and Abbas who "has thus far resisted any urge to toughen up his image with Palestinian hardliners through unnecessary anti-Israel speeches."
The editorial adds, "If this were baseball, President Bush would have hit a single, and Mr. Abbas a double. Now it's time for Ariel Sharon to step up to the plate."
The Times editorial writer neglects to consider one element: this conflict is no game. In the last four years alone, over 1,000 Israelis have died. If this is a game, it is a game that has lasted for more than a century and shows little indication of improving.
The death of Yasser Arafat opens a window of opportunity, but a very narrow window of opportunity. Jewish letter-writers blasted the editorial the next day: "How can you credit Abbas? with a double?" wrote Eli Spielman of Teaneck, New Jersey. "If you want to give him a single for setting an election date, fine, but you cannot award him an extra base for only having 'thus far resisted any urge to toughen up his image with Palestinian hardliners through unnecessary anti-Israel speeches.'"
Added Yaakov Har-Oz of Beit Shemesh, Israel: "Before urging Sharon to 'swing for the fences' with a Palestinian leadership that is not only new and untested but is also not even chosen, could we all possibly have the minimal patience needed to make sure that the new pitcher isn't throwing the kinds of spitballs, brushbacks and beanballs that Arafat threw?"
Certainly a peace process should be pursued, but cautiously. The Times editorial writer - like too many other people - wants Israel and the Palestinians to move swiftly. In fact, people are framing the question for the future as to the borders of a Palestinian state. The question should be: What is the best course of action? Any resolution should emerge from good-faith negotiations.
After four years of vicious warfare, who in Israel would trust the Palestinians with an independent state? The burden of proof is on them.
While the editorial makes some reasonable points, it presupposes the prospect of a shared Jerusalem: "A peace deal will be possible only if a Palestinian leader can establish enough authority to prepare the Palestinian people for what they must accept if they ever want an independent state: A Jerusalem shared between the two countries?"
What? Now they have Israel sharing Jerusalem with another country. I'm far from convinced that a Palestinian state is viable, and they're talking about a shared Jerusalem? That, too, must be hashed out in negotiations if there is any chance for that to become reality. The Palestinian negotiators will need to explain why they need Jerusalem.
For the record, two caveats: I have been harshly critical of the Sharon administration due to his gross mismanagement of this conflict.
Also, I read the New York Times each day and regard it to be a great newspaper - though there are many people who would dispute that. Some of the conclusions in Friday's editorial should not go unchallenged.
Whoever wrote some of the passages in this editorial hit some foul balls.