I don't get as bent out of shape by the NYT's Israel coverage as I used to (such as here and here),for a variety of reasons. One is that the recent moves of the Bush and Sharon governments indicate an acceptance of reality, notwithstanding occasional denial of the same by the NYT editors and reporters.

Another reason is that even certain pieces that seem to be written from a pro-Palestinian perspective, such as David Rieff's profile of Arafat in this week's Magazine section, often backfire and paint the Palestinians in a worse light than may be intended.

Rieff's piece features a studied refusal to provide context for the Israeli moves in imprisoning Arafat in his bunker - you will search in vain for any reference to the orgy of suicide bombings in early 2002 that prompted Operation Defensive Shield and succeeding moves against the Palestinians. (There is one reference to suicide bombings that makes it sound like something the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians, or that it is some natural force unconnected to anything the Palestinians do.) The point of that refusal is clear upon reading the piece, for what comes through - over and over again - is a refusal on the part of the Palestinains who are quoted to accept any responsibility for any part of their own fate.

Such as:

The Israeli government's decision to assassinate Sheik Yassin, the paraplegic cleric who was the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas -- and Sharon's subsequent declaration that Arafat himself should not think he is safe from a similar attack -- only heightened this sense of humiliation. The likelihood that only policy disagreements within the Israeli government, and American opposition to his assassination, were keeping him alive illustrated Palestinian powerlessness to Palestinians in a way that people on the West Bank described to me, over and over again, as unbearable. As one shopkeeper said: ''I have no authority as a father with my children. They know I cannot protect them from the Israelis. And Arafat is our Palestinian father, and the Israelis just toy with him.'' The fading Hebrew-language posters that Uri Avnery's group attached to canisters that serve as a barrier between the Mukata parking lot and Arafat's quarters -- they declare, ''There is someone to talk to'' -- seem from another geologic era.

...Hussain Sheikh, a senior Fatah leader and one of the younger generation that is intensely critical of the Palestinian Authority and in particular of Arafat, put it to me in this way: ''We Palestinians are suffering from two major problems -- Israeli occupation, and corruption. But what outsiders don't seem to understand is that the main obstacle to internal Palestinian reform is the Israeli occupation itself. Reform simply can't be the main item on the agenda while the occupation continues. The national issue has to have priority.''

...Over and over again on the West Bank, I met secular intellectuals and Fatah officials who refused to attack Hamas, even though they made it abundantly clear that the kind of Palestinian state the Islamists imagined was not one in which they would want to live. As one West Bank newspaper editor said, ''You cannot attack Hamas when Hamas is being attacked by the Israelis.''

...In fact, many Palestinians attribute precisely this kind of Machiavellian plot to the Israeli prime minister's decision to isolate Arafat. Above all, they say they believe that it is a way of making sure that American and European demands for reform within the Palestinian Authority never have a chance of being met. One senior Palestinian official, a reformist and a former Arafat loyalist, analyzed the situation in the following way: ''We want internal reforms, but no group can go into battle'' for them. To do so, he said, inevitably means criticizing Arafat. ''But the president's position is now so delicate that you can't criticize him. Arafat has been transformed into a holy icon. Anything that tarnishes his reputation, even for the sake of reform, would be thought of as playing into Israel's hands.''

Mentioning suicide bombings, other than as something that is "foreclosing Palestinian options" with no mention of who is actually conducting such bombings - i.e., giving context to why Israel has been doing what it is doing - would interfere with the chosen narrative of Palestinian helplessness. Rieff may think that his piece is showing the Palestinians in a positive light, but the emphasis on Palestinian passivity and fatalism is the best argument possible against a Palestinian state. For even if such a state were to come into being tomorrow, it would still have Israel as its great opponent and as an ever-present excuse not to implement internal reforms. (Those who persevere with such reforms, such as Palestinian Finance Minister Salam Fayyad, deserve ten times the media coverage and support given to Arafat and Hamas).

Also, the piece somehow omits mention of how Arafat, notwithstanding his imprisonment, found time to conduct the "political assassination" of the best recent hope for Palestinian reform and salvation, Abu Mazen.

With the context kept in mind, it is hard to read the piece and not be reminded of what Benny Morris has called

a perpetual Palestinian whining—that, I fear, is the apt term—to the outside world to save them from what is usually their own folly. And the whining, more often than not, has been accompanied by mendacity. Thus it was in September and October 1936, half a year into the Arab Revolt, when they secretly appealed to the monarchs of the Arab states to save them from British suppression by issuing a call to the Palestinians to "graciously" halt their rebellion. Thus it was in April and May 1948, when they pleaded for the Arab states to invade Palestine and save them from the Jews (whom they had attacked between November 1947 and March 1948). Thus it was in September 1970, when they called upon the Arab world to save them from the Hashemite regime in Jordan, which they had just assailed and tried to subvert. And thus it is today, when Arafat and his minions, having unleashed terror on Israel's cities, desperately appeal to the West and to the Arab states to save them from Israel's wrath.

Attempts to cover up Palestinian agency in their own problems only increases the likelihood that those problems will continue and worsen.

UPDATE: Great minds think alike! Andrew Silow-Carroll, currently guest-blogging at Protocols, writes at his day job:

The pro-Palestinian movement is perhaps the most patronizing political cause the world has ever known. In the minds of the pro-Palestinian Left, the residents of Gaza and the West Bank are always objects, never subjects. They are passive characters in a drama being staged by Israel and the United States and bear no responsibility, or even ability, to make decisions that will better their own lot. So when Ariel Sharon takes a stroll on the Temple Mount, it was “inevitable” that the “street” would explode. When a youth is denied a livelihood because of security closures, it is “inevitable” that he will strap a bomb to his chest.

Thanks to such inevitabilities, the pro-Palestinian movement has succeeded in nothing over the past 56 years of Israel’s existence but in infantilizing the Palestinians and adding to their misery — and the rest of the world’s.