The New York Times coverage of the conflict between Israel and its adversaries has been execrable (as it has been for many other areas-politics among them). The paper routinely ignored the thousands of missiles flying into Israel ever since Israel left the Gaza Strip; the preaching and teaching of hate; the oppressions of women and Christians in the Gaza Strip, and many other aspects of Hamas that might reflect badly on them.

The paper reaches at least a new short term low in today’s lead editorial on the actions Israel is taking to stop the barrage of missiles that is tantamount to aerial terror  . While the paper expresses “sympathy” for the Israelis who have had to endure these attacks for years (finally the paper gets around to that fact) it expresses concern that:

short-term success on the battlefield might encourage the Israelis to keep pressing further and longer in an attempt to decimate Hamas and wrest Gaza from its grip.

Heaven forbid! We would not want to decimate Hamas or wrest Gaza from its grip!

Many experts in other papers have come to realize that the only resolution to this conflict that harms both Palestinians and Israelis is to do precisely that-decimate Hamas. To not do so promises more warfare, more death, and more anti-Israel editorials from the New York Times. Maybe the paper just wants to ensure more fodder for their editorial page now that George Bush is leaving office.

The paper goes one step further and conveys the view that Israel’s actions are harming Barack Obama and the opportunity he should have as a new President to make peace between Israel and her enemies.

It will also make it harder for President-elect Barack Obama to pick up the pieces of peacemaking when he takes office on Jan. 20.

This view is contrary to the view of many others who view the weakening , if not the ouster of Hamas, as key to the future of peace negotiations between Israel and her neighbors, given Hamas’s unalterable goal of killing Jews (and oppressing-if not murdering- Christians) enshrined in its Charter. A plethora of columns have appeared over the last week from a wide variety of commentators holding the view that Israel is doing Barack Obama a favor by dealing with Hamas now (before the advent of his Presidency) so as to to remove a roadblock to future negotiations.

The Times repeatedly has called for the removing of roadblocks in the West Bank that Israel has established to prevent terror; the paper should be familiar with the concept and the language about removing roadblocks.

Stopping Israel now would hand Iran a victory and would present a problem to bedevil Barack Obama in his first days in office so holds former terrorist and current reformer Walid Phares in this Washington Times op-ed 

The Times goes further as the paper’s solution would be perceived as a victory for Hamas and its Iranian backer:

Israel has made it clear that it is in no rush for a diplomatic solution, but there will have to be one. That will require compromises from Israel, including acceptance of international monitoring of a cease-fire and an increased flow of goods and people between Israel and Gaza. Accepting those conditions would help persuade skeptics that Israel’s goals are as narrowly defined as it says they are.

This would hand a victory to terrorism. Hamas will tout that it has achieved its goals. International monitors will not prevent the rearming of Hamas (they have not done so in Lebanon) and will restrain , if not prevent, any Israeli defense actions against Gaza terror. The missile attacks will be shown to have been responsible for the lifting of controls on the flow of goods into Gaza Israel has used to help “persuade” Hamas not to launch missiles and to weaken support for Hamas.

Why, again, does anyone pay for a subscription to the Times?