Times Delusions Growing More Isolated
The media is taking a far more clear-eyed view than usual of the Palestinians in the wake of their takeover by a murder gang -- see this editorial in the Los Angeles Times, this one in the Detroit News and this excellent Richard Cohen column in the Washington Post.
"Don't Be Fooled By Hamas," is the title of the Cohen column, in which he, like the LA Times editorial, urged that the world cut off financial to the Palestinian Authority. Said Cohen:
"From here on they will lie about their ultimate aim and smilingly assure us that what they have always said they no longer mean. Their intention is clean government, efficient garbage service, good schools and level soccer fields -- and also to con Europe and America into continuing to send money to the Palestinians. All over the world, people will believe them and urge the United States and Israel to do the same. Take my word for this. Anyone can see the future. It's all in the past."
The New York Times, of course, can see neither the future nor the past, and its lead editorial today shows that the Times is obviously in mourning over the death of its cherished myth of Palestinian moderation. The Times is clearly showing signs of an almost schizophrenic detachment from reality, as shown by this incredible comment: "If ever there was a time of opportunity for the few remaining souls who have not given up on chances for Middle East peace, now might just be it."
Election of an Islamic government that wants to destroy Israel. Yes! Yes! An opportunity for a settlement. Just what I was thinking.
Going on in that incredible vein, the Times says that "It could also be argued that Hamas can become a negotiating partner for Israel."
Get a load of this "rationale": Unlike the Palestinian Authority, which refuses to crack down on terror groups (including, the Times murmurs, "well, Hamas") as required by the Road Map, Hamas "is far better able to deliver on the deeds, if it should so choose. The problem is, it refuses to say the words."
Whew! I'm a little dizzy reading that. Hamas wants to dismantle itself but is just too shy to admit it.
That's the Times editorial line. You really have to wonder if the people who signed off on this editorial really believe such nonsense. Can't the Times take no for an answer? Even its news columns are beginning to accept the reality of Hamas. Delusional statements like this are simply silly and undermine whatever credibility the newspaper's editorials have on this subject.
But even while predictably urging Israel to release money to the Palestinian Authority, the Times could not bring itself to argue that aid to the Pals not be cut off. "Presumably that decision can be made later — when a Hamas-dominated government is formed." Let's see what excuses the Times makes at that point.
However, even this inane Times editorial could not bring itself to make the customary "let's blame Israel for everything" line of pap. It concluded that "In the end, what happens will be up to the Palestinians and this new Hamas government that they have elected."
The Times of course will continue to press forward with its monotonously pro-Palestinian line whenever possible. But in doing so, the Times, like its friends the Palestinians, will be increasingly isolated in its stance. And if it continues with this kind of dog's breakfast of an editorial, it will accomplish nothing except to make itself look ridiculous.
------------------
To read the most recent items in this blog, click here!
To donate to Mediacrity, click here!
"Don't Be Fooled By Hamas," is the title of the Cohen column, in which he, like the LA Times editorial, urged that the world cut off financial to the Palestinian Authority. Said Cohen:
"From here on they will lie about their ultimate aim and smilingly assure us that what they have always said they no longer mean. Their intention is clean government, efficient garbage service, good schools and level soccer fields -- and also to con Europe and America into continuing to send money to the Palestinians. All over the world, people will believe them and urge the United States and Israel to do the same. Take my word for this. Anyone can see the future. It's all in the past."
The New York Times, of course, can see neither the future nor the past, and its lead editorial today shows that the Times is obviously in mourning over the death of its cherished myth of Palestinian moderation. The Times is clearly showing signs of an almost schizophrenic detachment from reality, as shown by this incredible comment: "If ever there was a time of opportunity for the few remaining souls who have not given up on chances for Middle East peace, now might just be it."
Election of an Islamic government that wants to destroy Israel. Yes! Yes! An opportunity for a settlement. Just what I was thinking.
Going on in that incredible vein, the Times says that "It could also be argued that Hamas can become a negotiating partner for Israel."
Get a load of this "rationale": Unlike the Palestinian Authority, which refuses to crack down on terror groups (including, the Times murmurs, "well, Hamas") as required by the Road Map, Hamas "is far better able to deliver on the deeds, if it should so choose. The problem is, it refuses to say the words."
Whew! I'm a little dizzy reading that. Hamas wants to dismantle itself but is just too shy to admit it.
That's the Times editorial line. You really have to wonder if the people who signed off on this editorial really believe such nonsense. Can't the Times take no for an answer? Even its news columns are beginning to accept the reality of Hamas. Delusional statements like this are simply silly and undermine whatever credibility the newspaper's editorials have on this subject.
But even while predictably urging Israel to release money to the Palestinian Authority, the Times could not bring itself to argue that aid to the Pals not be cut off. "Presumably that decision can be made later — when a Hamas-dominated government is formed." Let's see what excuses the Times makes at that point.
However, even this inane Times editorial could not bring itself to make the customary "let's blame Israel for everything" line of pap. It concluded that "In the end, what happens will be up to the Palestinians and this new Hamas government that they have elected."
The Times of course will continue to press forward with its monotonously pro-Palestinian line whenever possible. But in doing so, the Times, like its friends the Palestinians, will be increasingly isolated in its stance. And if it continues with this kind of dog's breakfast of an editorial, it will accomplish nothing except to make itself look ridiculous.
------------------
To read the most recent items in this blog, click here!
To donate to Mediacrity, click here!
posted by Mediacrity at 9:16 AM
<< Home