Commentary Magazine


Topic: Palestinian Authority

Palestinian TV Celebrates Mass Murderer

At times, it seems for those who wish to blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, there is nothing the Palestinians could do to reassess their thinking. But surely even the most dedicated finder of fault with Israel would have to be shocked by the latest outrage promoted by the official television station of the Palestinian Authority. PA TV runs a show titled “For You,” which is dedicated to stories about Arab prisoners being held in Israeli jails. But last week’s edition broke new ground when it comes to promoting contempt for the value of Jewish life among Palestinians.

The show, which was broadcast twice last week, featured Hakim Awad, a Palestinian who was sentenced to five life sentences last summer for taking part in the cold-blooded murder of a Jewish family in the settlement of Itamar. Hakim and his cousin Amjad Awad stabbed to death Udi and Ruth Fogel and three of their children: 11-year-old Yoav, 4-year-old Elad, and Hadas, a four-month-old baby. But the official television station of the U.S.-funded PA treated Awad as a “hero” and a “legend.”

Read More

The Palestinian Authority’s ATM

In a further sign of the ascent of radicalism in Palestinian politics, Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad told the Washington Times he would not run for the post of president. Fayyad, a favorite of the West due to his preference for nation building and improving the lives of ordinary Palestinians rather than promoting terror and hatred of Jews and Israel, is on the chopping block as prime minister because Hamas insists the unity pact with Fatah will not be fulfilled until his ouster. Fayyad knows better than to try his luck with the Palestinian electorate. Despite an unparalleled record of fighting corruption and promoting prosperity, he hasn’t a chance against the gunslingers of both Fatah and Hamas.

Even more interesting is his insistence he will not serve as finance minister, the job he held previous to his current post. To his credit, he doesn’t like the idea of being a front for a Hamas government whose respectability would be pimped abroad in order to continue the flow of aid from the United States and Europe.  “I do not really view myself as an ATM for the Palestinian Authority,” said Fayyad.

Read More

Abbas’s Mufti Preaches Jewish Slaughter

For some in the West, including many left-wing Jews, the prime obstacle to peace remains an obdurate Israeli government whose hard-line policies need to change. This is the conceit behind groups like J Street; the left-wing lobby that claims its services are needed to save Israel from itself. Unfortunately for the group and its cheering section in the press, all that is needed to debunk their argument is to pay even the slightest attention to what the Palestinians–the intended object of the left-wingers’ solicitude–are doing and saying.

Their principal religious leader, Mufti Muhammad Hussein, provided the latest example of mainstream Palestinian opinion. Earlier this month, Hussein told a gathering commemorating the founding of the “moderate” Fatah Party the slaughter of the Jews remains their religious duty. The speech, broadcast on official Palestinian television on Jan. 9, is a classic anti-Semitic incitement to hatred and a violation of the peace accords the Palestinian Authority has signed. The fact that it is has largely gone unreported tells you all you need to know about the distorted vision of the Middle East by the mainstream media.

Read More

The Islamist Winter and Middle East Peace

Anyone inclined to be sanguine about the future of Palestinian politics need only read the latest report by the Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh to understand that the threat of a Hamas takeover of the West Bank is real. The Fatah-Hamas unity agreement concluded last year may not yet have been consummated but, as Abu Toameh writes, even Fatah officials are starting to understand that if they allow another election, the Islamists may take control of all of the territories just as their Muslim Brotherhood allies have done in Egypt. According to Abu Toameh, Fatah officials are now openly expressing worry about the outcome of these elections, assuming they are held in May as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has promised.

No one should be holding their breath waiting for Abbas to make good on that pledge. Given that he is in now about to start the 8th year of the four-year-term to which he was elected in 2005, Abbas’s idea of democracy is limited to elections that he thinks he’ll win. Yet the pact he signed with Hamas last year is an indication he believes he cannot govern indefinitely without the protection of the radical terrorist group. That’s a piece of intelligence that should inform not only Fatah, but those in the United States that are urging Israel to make further concessions to the Palestinians in the vain hope they will finally agree to make peace.

Read More

Why Fayyad is on His Way Out

Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad is a favorite of both American diplomats and Israeli officials. His dedication to improving the lives of Palestinian Arabs on the West Bank and his support for security cooperation with Israel is seen as stepping-stones to a viable two-state solution. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman is so enamored of him that he elevated Fayyad to a one-man ideology called “Fayyadism,” whose future depends on elevated levels of support from the United States and Israel. But the problem with Fayyad and his “ism” is its main constituency is not Palestinian but rather American and Israeli. So when Hamas asked Fayyad’s boss PA President Mahmoud Abbas to dump him as part of the unity pact with the Islamist group, there was little resistance.

Fayyad is hanging on in Ramallah until the pact is completed, but anyone wanting to get a better idea of why Fayyad has so little political support among his people should read this interview with the PA prime minister in Britain’s JC. In it, he discusses how he shares Israel’s fears of a nuclear Iran, wishes the Iranians would shut up about the Israel-Palestinian conflict, registers dismay at the way Turkey has abandoned its alliance with Israel and generally dismisses the possibility that the popular Fatah-Hamas unity pact will ever be consummated. With this sort of a platform, he’d probably have an easier time getting elected to the Knesset than to the Palestinian parliament.

Read More

Managing Conflict Easier Said Than Done

Yesterday, a senior member of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet said his government had succeeded in convincing the Obama administration to give up trying to “solve” the conflict with the Palestinians and instead concentrate on just “managing” it. If Vice Premier Moshe Ya’alon is right, that’s a major achievement, because Washington’s obsession with forcing Israel to make futile concessions to a Palestinian Authority that has no interest in negotiations or a final settlement of the conflict has caused unnecessary friction between the two nations.

There is some doubt about whether Ya’alon’s boast is true, but even if it is, it comes a little late. With Hamas being welcomed in the Palestine Liberation Organization and the PA and with Fatah leaders now saying they will formally annul their Oslo Accord commitments, Israel and the U.S. must worry about the West Bank becoming another Gaza. Having spent the first three years of his presidency doing his best to egg the Palestinians on to be even more intransigent, the downward spiral of their political culture has created even more problems for the United States to manage.

Read More

The Real Threat to Middle East Christians

The airwaves were filled this weekend, as they always are every Christmas, with stories about the plight of Christians in Bethlehem. The once-overwhelmingly Christian town has lost much of its non-Muslim population in recent decades, and most news stories which touched on the annual Christmas celebrations in the town usually included at least a line or two in which this is blamed on Israel.

But efforts to scapegoat the Jewish state for the plight of Palestinian Christians are an absurd and politically motivated slur that ignores the real problem: the rise of militant Islam which has made even the town Christians think of as the birthplace of their faith inhospitable for non-Muslims. As the aftermath of the “Arab Spring” protests elsewhere in the Middle East has made clear, the fate of religious minorities in countries where Islamist parties are on the march cannot be assured.

Read More

Is Hamas Joining the PLO or is Fatah Joining Hamas?

In line with previous reports of a change in strategy on the part of Hamas, the news that the Islamist terror group has agreed to join the Palestine Liberation Organization may be viewed as further evidence of their moderation. But anyone who imagines that this move will bring the Middle East closer to peace is the victim of a deception. Rather than the PLO moderating Hamas, the integration of Gaza’s rulers into the ruling structures that govern the West Bank merely guarantees it will be even more difficult, if not impossible, for Israel to have a Palestinian negotiating partner.

The talks between Hamas and Fatah – the ruling faction of both the Palestinian Authority and the PLO — are fraught with tension, but the ongoing negotiations between the two factions in Cairo are testimony to the commitment of both to unite their efforts. Such a common front will not only close the door to talks to Israel (which the PA has avoided for three years) but will also raise the question of whether it will be possible to avoid a new round of violence.

Read More

Do You Believe in the “New” Hamas?

Fighting long-term wars against totalitarians and terrorists is always a difficult task for Western societies because such conflicts require the sort of resolution that is always bound to flag over time. There is always the tendency, especially among our intellectuals, to begin to reinterpret our enemies and to project our own values and interests onto their very different perspectives. That was true during the long twilight struggle against communism and the Soviet Union, and it is just as true during what may prove to be an equally lengthy struggle against Islamism. It is in this context that we should view the flurry of reports about the possibility of the Hamas terrorist movement changing its character and adopting non-violence and pursuing peace.

That’s the conceit behind an article in The National Interest titled “A new Hamas in the Making?” which cites no less an authority than Jane’s military publications that the Islamist group is making a “strategic” shift in strategy which aims at repositioning Gaza’s overlords as legitimate Arab players on the stage of Middle East diplomacy. But, as Jonathan Schanzer points out in a far more valuable article in The Weekly Standard, this may have more to do with the group’s need to adapt themselves to the dictates of their funders than any change in philosophy. Though some of the sound bites coming out of Gaza may seem to promise moderation or even non-violence, the expectation that Hamas is prepared to live in peace with Israel or drop the Jew-hatred that is at the core of its worldview is the product of a campaign of deception that ought not to be taken at face value.

Read More

Denying Palestinian Hate Won’t Bring Peace

Ever since the signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, Americans and Israelis who were trying to make peace in the Middle East have had one insoluble problem: how to explain the fact that Palestinian leaders say one thing to the Western media and quite another to their own people in Arabic. The answer for the peace processers was to either ignore or rationalize the consistent incitement and hatred coming from Palestinian sources lest the truth about their intentions dampen enthusiasm for Israeli concessions or for pressure on the Jewish state to surrender territory.

A counterweight to this inclination to deny the truth about the Palestinians has come from the work of Palestine Media Watch, an organization that was founded in 1996 and since then has produced translations of Arab print and broadcast media. PMW has just published a new book titled Deception: Betraying the Peace Process that is filled with translated quotes of Palestinians from 2010 to 2011. The cumulative effect of the depth of the hatred and delegitimization for Jews and Israel that is mainstream opinion among Palestinians is devastating. But, as an article about the topic in today’s New York Times demonstrates, it is also something many Americans and Israelis have trouble dealing with.

Read More

The Palestinian Balance of Terror

On Wednesday, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal will meet again in Cairo to discuss the implementation of the Fatah-Hamas unity pact that was first signed in May. Though the Jerusalem Post’s Khaled Abu Toameh reports there are still significant differences between the two groups, the resumption of the talks between them indicates that there is still a much greater chance of peace between the Palestinian factions than between the PA and Israel. Abbas’ desire to prefer “unity” with the Islamists of Hamas to negotiations with Israel illustrates the bankruptcy of a peace process that is predicated on the idea that “moderates” such as those running the PA are ready to recognize Israel’s legitimacy.

Though some Palestinian apologists claim the unity deal will housetrain Hamas, this contradicts everything we know about the terrorist group.  Far from the deal illustrating the willingness of Hamas to acquiesce to Israel’s existence, the relative shift in strength between the two movements since May as well as the growing influence of Islamists in Egypt shows progress toward implementation of the pact makes peace with Israel impossible.

Read More

PA Policy: Boycotting Dialogue With Israelis

Last week, I wrote about a Palestinian author who refused to participate in a panel discussion with an Israeli at a French literary conference. But it turns out this wasn’t the author’s private initiative: Boycotting all Israelis, even those most opposed to the Netanyahu government, is now official Palestinian Authority policy – even as the PA tells the world its problem isn’t with Israel, but only with Benjamin Netanyahu’s “right-wing” policies.

The new policy was announced this weekend by Hatem Abdel Kader, a senior official in PA President Mahmoud Abbas’ Fatah party. “We will try to thwart any Palestinian-Israeli meeting,” he said. “In Fatah we have officially decided to ban such gatherings.” And it’s already being implemented in practice, as The Jerusalem Post reported: Organized mobs of Palestinian protesters recently forced the cancellation of two Israeli-Palestinian conferences sponsored by a civil-society group. And Sari Nusseibeh, who was supposed to speak at one, didn’t even show up due to threats from the anti-normalization thugs.

Read More

RE: Egypt Needs Liberalism

There’s not much more to say in a general sense about Michael Totten’s badly needed reality check differentiating liberal democracies — roughly, those that have robust democratic institutions that insulate themselves — from mere democratic spectacles. But it’s worth noting, as a way of beginning to evaluate how the Cairo riots will affect Near East diplomacy, just how much this fundamental point has been neglected in the specific context of Arab-Israeli peacemaking.

For Israel, the cold peace with Egypt and the intermittent peace with the Palestinian Authority have always been conducted against the backdrop of a see-no-evil approach to incitement. As long as Cairo and Ramallah cooperated with Jerusalem on security issues, Israeli and Western diplomats looked the other way as those regimes violated their Camp David and Oslo pledges to undertake normalization.

Put more bluntly: as long as Egypt and the Palestinian Authority helped stymie the terrorists of today, Israel and the West were content to let them go on creating the terrorists of tomorrow. Because at least those regimes were stable!

Those terrorists of tomorrow were made possible through geography textbooks that erased Israel, and through television programs that vilified Jews, and through official government propaganda that scapegoated the Jewish state for every imaginable social ill. As of this morning, the Mubarak regime is parading “protesters” in front of state-TV cameras to explain how they were trained by the Mossad to bring down the regime.

The result is that Egyptian and Palestinian civil society is a feverish cesspool of anti-Semitic conspiracism — recall the minor hysteria a few weeks ago over Zionist attack sharks — while Egyptians and Palestinians continue to very publicly indulge in fantasies of eradicating Israel itself. Read More

Palestinian Authority Announces ‘Surprise’ Elections

The Associated Press reports that, in a “surprise move,” Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad’s cabinet said it would set dates for local elections soon. The AP says the announcement reflects fears that Egypt-like protests could inspire unrest in the West Bank.

You can understand the thinking. Hosni Mubarak got protests while he was still serving his term of office; Mahmoud Abbas is about to begin the 74th month of his 48-month one. Mubarak at least had a presidential election scheduled for September, even if he (or his son) would have run — like Abbas in 2005 — effectively unopposed. Abbas has no election scheduled, nor any prospect of scheduling one, since he cannot campaign in half his territory and might not win in the other half, as his standing has been damaged by disclosures that he made minimal private concessions in peace talks with Israel.

Nor will elections be scheduled for the non-functioning Palestinian parliament, because its principal factions cannot co-exist with each other in a single state, ever since one of them threw members of the other off the top of buildings, and the other started arresting its opponents in the West Bank as part of efforts to build a security state much like … Egypt.

At least elections for local councils may now be held, even though they will result from fear rather than compliance with last year’s order of the Palestinian “High Court,” which the formerly fearless Abbas/Fayyad government ignored as it headed into the final months of its two-year plan to build a state.

Some Unfashionable Thoughts About Egypt

Few moments in recent history have put political conservatism to the test like the ongoing uprising taking place in Egypt today. There are, after all, two different approaches to foreign policy that can be called “conservative”: one points to the spread of democracy as an expression of American greatness and seeks to sweep aside dictatorial rulers in order to promote democratic values, institutions, and elections wherever possible. The other is more strictly power-based: if America’s the good guy, then first we have to make sure that America’s allies are strong and its enemies are weak. Both approaches will point to Ronald Reagan as the ultimate example: the former for his unflinching fight against Soviet totalitarianism; the latter for his willingness to sometimes support less-than-democratic allies when the alternative was the further expansion of Soviet political and military dominance.

So what are we to make of Egypt? On the one hand, if the U.S. abandons Mubarak, it embraces democracy but loses heavily in the power calculus. By showing itself to be a fickle friend in times of need, America further erodes the confidence of all the other authoritarian allies in the Arab world who are forever fearful of the Iranian threat and who need to believe that the U.S. will really stand behind them.

At the same time, if America stands with Mubarak until the end, it risks (a) looking hypocritical in the face of what looks like a genuinely democratic (i.e., popular, spontaneous) uprising, and (b) repeating the mistakes made during the Iranian revolution, when the U.S. bet on the wrong horse, alienating the Iranian people by supporting the Shah, thus setting the stage for a whole generation of militant anti-American hostility in the Islamic Republic that emerged. Americans don’t want to make that mistake again.

Here in Israel, there doesn’t seem to be a lot of enthusiasm about the potential overthrow of Mubarak. Nobody has any illusions about his regime. And yet, the alternatives appear far worse. It’s true that there’s no single organized leadership behind the revolt. Both the more liberal and the Islamist oppositions were taken totally by surprise. The revolution is first of all about bread and jobs, much less about democratic ideals. In terms of ideas guiding it, there are very few other than “throw the bums out.” And this is exactly the problem. Read More

Clinton, Jordanian FM: No. 1 Priority Is Israeli/Palestinian Peace Process

Tunisia’s transition government is creating black lists of long-serving officials to be expelled from the government, which covers most of the people who have experience governing. Egypt is literally on fire, Yemen is about to follow, and Jordan is on deck. The nightmare land-for-peace scenario — where Israel cedes strategic depth to a stable government only to see it fall to radicals who abandon previous agreements — is roughly at 50/50 right now, with only an unstable Egyptian government standing in the way.

Under normal thinking, the uncertainty over land-for-peace would cause a rethinking of land-for-peace, and violent riots would engender a focus on things that aren’t violent riots. But dogma is dogma:

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that peace in the Middle East remained the top US priority, despite unrest in the region and a leak of alleged Palestinian negotiation documents. Clinton confirmed she would head next week to Munich for talks of the “Quartet” of Middle East mediators and said she spoke at length about the conflict with Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh of Jordan, a close US partner. “For both our nations, permanent peace in the Middle East remains our number one priority,” Clinton told a joint news conference with Judeh. … “Such an agreement, Jordan and the United States believe, will not only bring peace and prosperity to those who are directly affected, but it will be a major step toward a world free of extremism,” she said. [emphasis added]

Good to see that the Jordanians are keeping their eyes on the ball, too, despite already facing tribal pressure and now being subject to the same economic-Islamist alliance sweeping the rest of the Middle East. Given the Palestinian Authority’s precarious weakness, it’s not unlikely that a West Bank state would quickly become radicalized, with the instability spilling across the Jordan River and all the way into Amman. Though, in fairness, under this scenario, their declared “number one priority” would have been solved, and Israel would be out of the West Bank, such that they’d finally be able to focus on less-critical issues like the Jordanian kingdom not getting overthrown.

Usually the diplomatic obsession with Israel — irrational and incoherent as it is — at least has the quality of being interesting. Foreign-policy experts have to invent elaborate geopolitical and geo-cultural theories like linkage. Then, because those theories are wrong, they have to come up with creative epistemic and rhetorical ways of justifying them — insider access to Muslim diplomats, movement detectable only to experts, critical distinctions between public and private spheres in the Arab world, etc. It’s like reading about all the brilliant people who tried to save the medieval church’s Earth-centered solar system by sticking epicycles everywhere. Sure, it’s a last-ditch effort to save a fundamentally incorrect theory, one being propped up in the interests of ideology — but at least it’s interesting.

This, in sharp contrast, is just silly. And while I hope and think that the secretary of state was just mouthing the usual ritualistic incantations, the fact that she felt the need to do so shows how far removed from reality Middle East diplomacy has gotten.

The Jewish Chronicle Joins Condemnation of the Guardian

The Jewish Chronicle, a highly influential newspaper among the British Jewish community, published a surprisingly hard-hitting editorial today slamming the Guardian for its coverage of the Palestinian Papers controversy.

“There is nothing, of itself, wrong with the Guardian publishing its scoop; all serious newspapers relish scoops,” wrote the Chronicle, in reference to the Guardian‘s collaborating with Al Jazeera to break the Palestinian Papers story. “What is very wrong is the way the paper chose to present its story: the distortions, the bias, the agenda, the spin and the breathtaking arrogance of its handing down instructions to the Palestinians of how they should behave.”

The Guardian and Al Jazeera have been criticized for heavily spinning the story: taking quotes out of context, printing misleading claims, and leaving out information that might contradict a preconceived narrative.

But that’s nothing new for the Guardian, especially when it comes to its obsessive and highly tendentious coverage of Israel and the Palestinian territories. It’s editorial section, however, did cross a line with the Palestinian Papers story — one that may be impossible to step back over.

Let’s no longer pretend that the Guardian supports a two-state solution. This week its editorial board aligned itself with the views of Hamas. Its columnists have called on Palestinians to rise up against the Palestinian Authority leaders. And, perhaps most shameful, it printed a cartoon of PA President Mahmoud Abbas dressed up like an Orthodox Jew — drawn by cartoonist Carlos Latuff, known for his viciously anti-Israel work.

“The Guardian crossed a line this week. It has not practised journalism but rather hardcore political activism, playing with people’s lives,” the Chronicle concluded.

The Chronicle’s editors are correct in their condemnation. Other Jewish organizations concerned about anti-Semitic incitement would be smart to follow their lead.

Why Did Peace Talks Fail? Abbas Wouldn’t Take the Pen and Sign

The New York Times is reporting today that former Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert’s memoirs confirm what has long been known to be true: that in September 2008, Mahmoud Abbas walked away from a peace agreement that would have guaranteed a Palestinian state in virtually all the West Bank, Gaza, and part of Jerusalem.

Excerpts from Olmert’s memoirs were published yesterday in the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot, and his recollections, along with the Palestinian documents released by Al Jazeera this week, provide a fairly comprehensive picture of what went on in the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority in 2008. This week we have been hearing a great deal about how accommodating Abbas was in “conceding” that Jews would be allowed to stay in their homes in Jerusalem and that Israel would not allow millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees to transform the Jewish state into one more Arab one. But the real concessions were, as has consistently been the case since the Oslo process began in 1993, made by Israel.

Olmert’s 2008 concessions were unprecedented. He not only was prepared to give the Palestinians their state; he also gave in on the question of an Israeli security presence along the Jordan River (that border would be patrolled by an international force with no Israelis present); he was prepared to allow Jerusalem’s holy places to be placed in the hands of a multinational committee; and he was even prepared to allow a symbolic number of refugees to settle in Israel while “generously compensating” all others who claimed that status. Read More

Middle East Optimism Requires Blinders

Optimism about peace between Israel and the Palestinians has always been a matter of religious faith rather than rational analysis. Every new proof that the process begun in 1993 with the Oslo Accords was based on false premises must be dismissed or ignored simply because believers in peace insist it is possible and because they wish it be so. While the Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg has not generally been among the most dogged optimists about peace, he was still willing to co-author a 2,200-word essay with Hussein Ibish of the American Task Force on Palestine published on today’s New York Times op-ed page that argues that despite the evidence of our lying eyes, there is still plenty of room for belief that the process can be revived.

Their thesis rests on the idea that changes in the political cultures of both Israel and the Palestinians make progress inevitable. It is true that there is an overwhelming consensus within Israel in favor of a two-state solution and that even the supposedly intransigent right-wing government of the country has made it clear it is ready to accept a Palestinian state. It is also true that the Palestinian Authority under the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad has made great strides toward making the territories a better place for its inhabitants, though Goldberg and Ibish overestimate the PA’s abandonment of anti-Semitic incitement and the language of delegitimization of Israel. The PA has also created a security apparatus that has been allowed greater scope by the Israelis, and Abbas and Fayyad understand it is in their interest to clamp down on terrorism.

These are factors that theoretically ought to allow the two sides to come to an agreement and finally make peace. But that hasn’t happened. The reason is that the less-hopeful developments of the past few years are still far more important in determining whether the conflict can be brought to an end. Read More

The Guardian Wants Its Two-State Solution Back. Beware.

When the Guardian launched its “Palestine Papers” on Sunday, the sensational leak was accompanied by an editorial, which was sensationally titled “Pleading for a fig leaf” and just as sensationally subtitled “The secret notes suggest one requires Panglossian optimism to believe that these negotiations can one day be resurrected.”

The editorial went on to accuse the Palestinian leadership of being a bunch of collaborators — it described them as “weak” and “craven” — a mixture of poodles and quislings. It decried their humiliating readiness “to flog the family silver” in order to get “a puppet state.” It then proclaimed: “The Palestinian Authority may continue as an employer but, as of today, its legitimacy as negotiators will have all but ended on the Palestinian street.”

So, on January 23, the peace process is dead, unless you are a “Panglossian optimist.”

This was not just an isolated 0pinion piece — this was an opening salvo from the editor. Somehow, it looks like someone may have regretted going so far, because just two days later, a new editorial with a contrary headline appeared — “Despair. But we still need a deal” — with a subtitle that was also the opposite of that of the January 23 editorial: “A two-state solution remains the only show in town.” Read More