Washington Post: Israel Should Give Hamas A Bailout Too

Far be it that Hamas should suffer the consequences of bombing Israel. According to The Washington Post--its not really Hamas behind it, think of the suffering, and think of the resultant increase in tension in the region. Israel should bail out Hamas.

But The Post editorial is as sloppy as their underlying theme is insulting.

According to The Washington Post, everything is relative. All you have to do is read this morning's editorial about Gaza and the very first thing that hits you in the face is this:

AFTER SIX months of relative calm, hostilities once again are escalating between Israel and the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip. [emphasis added]

That strikes me as rather cowardly on the part of The Washington Post. The best it can muster to describe what Sderot has had to suffer during this 'truce' is:

During the summer and fall, the rocket fire from Gaza diminished but never entirely stopped.

Maybe The Washington Post should get together with Ehud Barak and get their stories straight. It was just yesterday that Barak was waxing nastalgic over the calm--except that he thought the calm was during the time preceding the past 6 months:

Defense Minister Ehud Barak warned the Cabinet that broad military action is increasingly likely. "In order to return to a calm like six months ago, we will probably need a wide-scale operation," he said, according to a meeting participant who spoke on condition of anonymity under government guidelines.

Apparently, you get your calm where you can make it up find it.

The Washington Post seems to lack the ability to gather the facts--or does it merely find the numbers of rockets fired by Hamas at the innocent civilians of Sderot to be inconvenient? I imagine that Sderot finds those rockets to be even more inconvenient.

Noam Bedein, Sderot Media Center director, gives the numbers:

"No damage was done, and nobody was hurt" - The falsification of the
fictitious ceasefire: 377 missiles were launched towards Israel during
the "relaxation" period.

This Friday, the 19th of December, is the last day of the ceasefire
between Israel and the Hamas.

This is the second declared ceasefire in the past two years. It began
in June 19th 2008, and is destined to end in December 19th of this
year.

According to the IDF's spokesperson, approximately 377 missiles were
launched from Gaza towards Israel. More missiles than "just" the 315
that were fired during the first ceasefire, which lasted from the 26th
of November 2006 to the 15th of May 2007.

The question is: why couldn't The Washington Post have done that--make it clear to their readers that calm over a 6 month period means that only 377 rockets were fired at Sderot? Were they unable to get the numbers, or just too embarrassed--embarrassed at how stupid this entire editorial would appear?

The Washington Post editorial makes just one ridiculous point after another:

Neither side seems to want such an all-out fight -- particularly not Israel, whose defense minister has pointed out that an invasion could cost hundreds of lives and leave thousands of Israeli troops stranded in Gaza without an exit strategy.

Hamas does not want a fight? How do they know? Israel's defense minister is quoted as to why they don't. Couldn't The Washinton Post find a similar quote from Hamas why they don't? What does that tell you?

But neither Israel nor Hamas has been satisfied with the informal cease-fire they reached in June with the help of Egypt.

Well, I can understand that Israel is dissatisfied--they are being fired at. Remind me again why Hamas would be dissatisfied with a cessation of hostilities? Or are they merely upset that Israel reacts to being bombed?

Israel, in turn, allowed only a modest increase in the flow of goods into Gaza, which has been under virtual siege since last year, and frequently sealed off the strip entirely in response to fresh attacks.

In the eyes of The Post, a purely defensive measure becomes an act of retaliation? If only The Washington Post were the only newspaper that could be accused of such bias.

In a last-ditch effort to defend Hamas, The Washington Post blames 'the other Hamas':

Hamas's Damascus-based leadership appears to have imposed a decision to end the cease-fire upon its administration in Gaza, which will have to live with the resultant suffering.

Please join me in a moment of silence out of respect for Hamas in Gaza and their long history of searching for a peaceful end to the war they have declared on Israel. Or has nobody at The Washington Post read the Hamas Charter?

Even then, according to the Post, the end to the cease-fire that is being foisted by Damascus-Hamas on Gaza-Hamas is a purely defensive measure:

The aim appears to be to force Israel to lift the blockade on the territory, something it is already under growing international pressure to do.

At the end of its editorial, The Post offers a solution:

Israeli officials rightly point out that no country should have to tolerate missile attacks on its cities; such attacks justify a military response. But Israel would be better positioned to defeat Hamas politically and diplomatically if it allowed the full resumption of food, medicine and fuel deliveries to Gaza and made clear its willingness to end other restrictions on civilian trade in exchange for a full cessation of rocket attacks and other hostilities. If Hamas is to be toppled, it will have to be through a political process led by Palestinians.

All Israel has to do is return to the status quo, including supplying the fuel Hamas is taking for itself for the rockets to bomb Israel with.

Yeah, that was going well.

The Washington Post seems ill-equipped for offering suggestions about how to deal with the Israel-Palestinian war.

Maybe they should just go back to having terrorists writing op-eds.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: The Washington Post and Media Bias.