[The following, by Eamonn McDonagh, is crossposted from Z Word.]

7. Conclusion

There are far more similarities than differences in the two papers coverage of the crisis. Both see Israel as entirely at fault, whether through malevolence or incompetence, and both would probably like the crisis to get worse and for the Israelis to get their comeuppance from Washington, but neither can quite bring itself to believe this might be possible. Both share a view of the Palestinians as generally passive, with Israel bearing practically the whole responsibility for the absence of a Palestinian state, almost as if it was something it possessed and perversely refused to hand over, as if the only obstacle to the creation of a state was Israel's refusal to allow it. Their view of the conflict is an Israel-obsessed one and it sees the Palestinians as having, at best, a partial political subjectivity, waiting for others, principally Israel but also the Americans, to do the right thing and vindicate their rights for them. They both see Israel, in both its existence and its actions as the sole motor of history in the conflict and have a very thin view of the history of the conflict. Despite their evident sympathy for the Palestinians neither paper treats them with the seriousness it treats the Israelis.

Neither paper even hints at a view of the current squabble over East Jerusalem in the context of the long roll back of Israel's territorial ambitions that started with the evacuation of the Yamit settlement in the context of the peace deal with Egypt and continued with the peace deal with Jordan, the withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 and the withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and, for that matter, the construction of the security fence on the West Bank which, whatever it is, is not the work of a power with a major expansionist agenda.

Though both papers, and especially El País, make frequent reference to the attitude of Israel and the United States to Iran's nuclear ambitions, neither have anything to say as to why those plans might be of legitimate concern to them and particularly to Israel. Indeed, if you were to base your views solely on what you read in these two papers you might conclude that the principle cause for concern about Iran's drive to obtain nuclear weapons was that it might provoke a preemptive Israeli attack to stop it. There's nothing at all about what Iran might actually do with such weapons should it obtain them or its attitude towards Jews and their right to self-determination and nothing about its role as chief sponsor of Hamas and Hezbollah either. There's no hint that, the treaties with Jordan and Egypt excepted, giving up land in the past has not brought Israel peace and that this fact might weigh rather heavily on the minds of Israelis and their leaders when it comes to the moment to hand over more.

---

This is the fifth post in a series of five. The first is here, the second here, the third here and the fourth here.