The NYT, who always knows best, preaches in an editorial today for electing a new Israeli leader who believes in the two-state solution:
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.
Of course, one might argue that there’s nothing wrong with such leader, but it seems as if the NYT is a bit out of touch. In recent months, there have been more Palestinian leaders than Israeli ones expressing doubt regarding this formula for peace. On the other hand, very few Israeli leaders seriously argued for abandonment of the two-state solution. True, many of them are not as enthusiastic about it as Prime Minister Olmert–and can you blame them? But the NYT misrepresents the contours of the current Israeli political camps in pursuit of its goal (helping elect an Israeli PM of the right tendencies):
Those now maneuvering to succeed Mr. Olmert also need to behave responsibly. Two of the main contenders – Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni from Mr. Olmert’s Kadima Party and the Labor Party leader, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, favor a two-state solution. The other two – Transport Minister Shaul Mofaz, also from Kadima, and Benjamin Netanyahu, the Likud Party leader and former prime minister – do not. They need to think again.
So favoring the two-state solution is the litmus test. But who’s really going to pass it?
Read the rest of this COMMENTARY web exclusive here.