Bloodthirsty Liberal

Sometimes it is useful to read the Washington Post’s coverage of Israel and the Palestinians—not for any edification, mind you, but to see how the liberal establishment still tries to sweep the crimes of the Palestinians under the rug:

Since the Hamas takeover of the Gaza Strip, Israel has faced an increasingly complex set of military options to stop attacks from the territory, and a debate over its humanitarian responsibilities for the strip’s 1.4 million people.

The political split between the West Bank and Gaza has also strengthened calls in Israel to abandon the idea of a Palestinian state, which was at the core of the Oslo peace accords signed in 1993.

Gaza is now ruled by an ascendant Islamic movement that calls for Israel’s destruction, and the West Bank by a disorganized secular party seeking immediate peace negotiations. That divide has cast doubts on whether the formula of a Palestinian state existing side by side with Israel is still viable.

What’s so bad about that? Rather than the substance being correct, and only a few details wrong, this is the other way around. Yes, Hamass is an ascendant Islamic movement in Gaza…and that’s about it. The only thing accurate about the description of Fatah is “disorganized”. They are secular only in comparison to Hamass; they seek peace negotiations with Israel in one breath and defame her in another (leaving aside, for the moment, their terrorist actions which have always belied their words—leaving aside, also, their insistence on “right of return”, which would erase Israel from the map as surely as it is already erased from Palestinian textbooks); they “rule” the West Bank by that unique Palestinian combination of corruption and intimidation. And why no mention at all of the other terrorist groups, who handily carried on shelling, rocketing, etc. while Hamass and Fatah claimed to be holding their fire?

But what does Israel have to do with a fantasy known as the Palestinian state anyway? Israel leaving Gaza gave the Palestinians a chance to show what they were made of—and they did. You could call it a state now, but the name Somalia is already taken.

The Oslo accords are 14 years old, and have yielded nothing. One might as well cite the treaty of Versailles, for all the relevance they have.

Wrong, WaPo. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.