Fateful Triangle

Aftermath590“impossible”—as indeed it is, in the face of U.S. rejectionism. TheTimes adds that “even if a small, new Palestinian nation were desirable,it could only evolve over time”—there is no Palestinian nation, the Timespronounces, echoing the Likud and Labor Party, mimicking Arabextremists who reject Jewish claims to national rights (a “small, newJewish nation may not be desirable,” some anti-Semite might declare).The PLO is “irrelevant,” since it does not conform to U.S. wishes. 20What the Times fails to say is as revealing as its own words. Thus,Israel is not “irrelevant” even though its rejection of the Reagan plan isfar more extreme than that of the PLO. The Labor opposition is not“irrelevant” indeed, it is the hope of the future—even though its reactionto the Reagan plan is approximately on a par with that of the PLO, andits position is in clear and explicit contradiction to the “self-governmentfor a million Palestinians” which the Times professes to advocate. TheUnited States is not “irrelevant,” though it gave the coup de grace to theReagan plan by continuing—in fact, increasing—its support forsettlement in the occupied territories. Other commentary in the presswas not very different at the time, and remained so in coming months.The Times editors might argue that to criticize them along these linesis unfair, since a crucial premise has been omitted which serves toeliminate the absurdities, distortion of the historical record, egregiousdouble standard and blatant inconsistencies: namely, that the task ofthe “newspaper of record” is to be a servant of external power, an outletfor state propaganda. On this assumption, the stance of the editorsmakes perfect sense: the U.S. government has determined that Israel isto be supported as a “strategic asset” and that the inhabitants of theconquered territories have no valid claim to the human rights accordedto Jews. Given the overriding principle just enunciated, then, the Timesreaction is quite logical. The Times cannot fairly be accused of a doublestandard, as in the previous comments, since it is consistently followingClassics in Politics: The Fateful TriangleNoam Chomsky