The New York Times Wants To Put Hamas On Notice

The recent agreement between the two main factions — Fatah, which leads the Palestinian Authority and has committed to peace with Israel, and Hamas, which has committed to Israel’s destruction — is not the answer.

That's the assessment of Sunday's editorial from the New York Times on the Hamas-Fatah deal, which goes on to mention a number of concerns, including:

• Hamas has not renounced its violence nor agreed to recognize Israel.
• Mr. Abbas may have privately agreed to replace Salam Fayyad as prime minister, after all he has done to build up the West Bank economy and institutions.
• What will happen to the Palestinian Authority's security force--especially since it unlikely that Hamas can be integrated into it without eliminating it as a force to maintain Israeli security in the West Bank.

On the other hand, the New York Times is opposed to applying the most often suggested option--cutting off money--suggesting that doing so would bring Fatah closer to Hamas. Of course, while that might have been a clearer concern before the Hamas-Fatah agreement, now that the 2 have signed, it would appear a bit late to be concerned of Fatah edging closer to the Hamas camp. In any case, Abbas has never stopped honoring Palestinian terrorists who have murdered Israeli civilians--so just how big a gap are we supposed to think has existed between the two groups?

So far, so good--but then the editorial resorts to a fabrication about Hamas leader Meshal:

In an interview with The Times last week, Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader, declared himself fully committed to working for a two-state solution. Just a few days earlier Hamas’s (supposedly more moderate) prime minister, Ismail Haniya, was out there celebrating Osama bin Laden as a “Muslim and Arab warrior.” Huge skepticism and vigilance are essential. But more months with no progress on peace talks will only further play into extremists’ hands.

The editorial follows in the footsteps of Ethan Bronners article, Hamas Leader Calls for Two-State Solution, but Refuses to Renounce Violence, whose only explicit indication that Meshal is in fact willing to participate in a two-state solution is the headline of the article: nowhere in the article does Meshal himself actually say this.

In fact, Bronner himself contradicts himself in the very first paragraph:

Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader, said on Thursday that he was fully committed to working for a two-state solution but declined to swear off violence or agree that a Palestinian state would produce an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Clearly, the only thing Meshal is committed to is continued violence--even after the creation of a second Palestinian state. But this does not stop the left from putting words in the terrorist leader's mouth.

But once The New York Times has set up this straw man, it has the peg to support what it has been saying all along, regardless of the facts and continuous terrorist attacks:

So what happens now? The United States and the other members of the quartet — the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — need to put the new government on notice that all support will be carefully scrutinized and that firing Mr. Fayyad would be a big mistake. They need to tell Hamas that if it is serious about coming in from the cold, it must halt all attacks on Israel and recognize its right to exist.

There is something almost comical to look at the 2 partners in this agreement: Fatah, which has continued to incite Palestinians against Israel while Hamas has continued to fire rockets at Israeli civilians--and then read that the New York Times suggests that there is a "need to put the new government on notice".

How has putting terrorists "on notice" worked so far?

The editorial concludes in the expected balanced manner: Netanyahu, who has offered over and over to come to the table suddenly needs to be 'pressed' to return to the peace table--conveniently forgetting to Abbas. who consistently refused to negotiate.

The New York Times concludes that Obama has to present a deal and force an end to the "stalemate". If by stalemate the editorial refers to Netanyahu's refusal to make another unilateral concession instead of negotiating (again, Netanyahu is the one who repeatedly talks about being willing to negotiate).

The New York Times has been making the same suggestions, and in the same "balanced" way long before the current turmoil in the Middle East, and just continues to do so.

Apparently they are not the least bit phased that while in the rest of the Middle East Muslims are risking their lives to bring change to their corrupt and oppressive governments, the Palestinians instead are consolidating theirs.

Technorati Tag: Fatah and Hamas.