I’ve found rather a lot to criticize in recent New York Times journalism. Not since John Burns wrote a wonderful piece on the Israeli security fence (a few weeks ago) have I felt glowing praise was in order. But today is the day to give the Times its due. New Tries for Mideast Peace (who thought of that lame title by the way?) lauds Ayalon and Nusseibeh, who:
produced an admirable…statement of principles for a two-state solution, which they say has been signed by 100,000 Israelis and 70,000 Palestinians. It deals with the most sensitive issues: Israel would be recognized as the “state of the Jewish people,” sovereignty in Jerusalem would be divided and shared, and the Palestinian “right of return” would not include returning to Israel.
But the editorial quickly raises the deepest sticking point to any potential peace agreement:
…A majority of Israelis and Palestinians favor such a solution, but the leadership needed to produce it is missing in Jerusalem, Ramallah and Washington.
For the time being, the will of the people is weaker than the lassitude of the political leadership. One desperately hopes that this will not always (and not long) be the case.