How About This?

Is it me, or is this editorial in the NY Times surprisingly strong:

Palestinian leaders have been promoting the illusion that Islamic radical groups will ultimately transform themselves into peaceful political parties. That fantasy was shattered on Tuesday along with 20 innocent lives when a Hamas terrorist blew up a Jerusalem bus. The bombing occurred at the very moment the Palestinian prime minister, Mahmoud Abbas, was meeting with Islamic radicals in Gaza. If anything positive is to come from this latest atrocity, it will be a conclusive realization by Mr. Abbas that organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have no genuine interest in cease-fire agreements or two-state solutions and must be forcibly put out of the terrorism business. Only then will the American-sponsored road map for peace have a chance of delivering Palestinian statehood.

Hamas described Tuesday’s bombing as retaliation for the Israeli Army’s killing of one of its militants in June. Hamas is a self-appointed gang of thugs with no right to kill anyone, Israeli or Palestinian. That is how it must be treated by Mr. Abbas and his security chief, Muhammad Dahlan.

Hmmmm. I feel the earth shifting ever so slightly under my feet.

12 thoughts on “How About This?”

  1. This just might be the straw that broke the camels back – hopefully Abu Mazan and Dahlan will finally understand that with Hamas and Jihad allowed to have any kind of legitimate recognition, the Palestinian hope for a state is nothing more than a pipe dream.

  2. The Times seems to have finally understood that terrorist groups cannot be part of a peace process. Hopefully they will soon understand that the PA is in most respects little better than a terrorist group.

  3. How do you address the fact that Abbas is toothless to fight the terrorist groups himself? Do you think he will perhaps facilitate an Israeli crackdown?

  4. NEWS FLASH!!! THE WSJ AND NYT AGREE!
    This from the NYT editorial page:

    “If anything positive is to come from this latest atrocity, it will be a conclusive realization by Mr. Abbas that organizations like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have no genuine interest in cease-fire agreements or two-state solutions and must be forcibly put out of the terrorism business.And (drum roll please)…this from the WSJ editorial page:

    Mr. Abbas has a chance to turn Palestinians away from terror and lead his people to statehood in peace with Israel. To do that, however, he must forcibly disarm these terrorists.

    They even use the exact same words. This is a once in a blue moon consensus. Hopefully, the Palestinian leadership is getting the message.

  5. One thing that needs to change is that the Europeans and others need to finally say that there is no “political wing” of Hamas that is legitimate. So what if they run some schools that teach hate and give some money to the poor. Hamas is a terrorist organization trying to fool everyone else into thinking they are legit. Hell even in America our so called Muslim leaders are always saying Hamas does good too. Enough already! Throw down the hammer and see what happens.

    Cheers!

  6. It’s better than usual but still weak. This:

    “After nearly three years of fighting between Israel and armed Palestinian groups, Mr. Abbas’s administration may not have the police resources to shut down Hamas, Islamic Jihad…”

    ..is silly. The problem is not likely a “resource” problem; it is more likely due to (a) a high percentage of the police sympathizing with the terrorists, and (b) Abbas lacking any authority to give orders without Arafat’s approval, even if he wanted to.

    Very similar to the common domestic liberal belief that solving problems is always a budgetary exercise…it’s all about “resources.”

  7. The thing that the editorials seem to skirt around is the fact that civil war in Palestine is all but inevitable once any sort of settlement is reached. Absent conflict with Israel, Palestine stands a remarkably good chance of becoming a completely failed state.

  8. I think Yehudit is right, this is a spasm, not a trend.

    The New York Times editorial staff is earning a reputation for talking tough (to distinguish themselves from hardcore peaceniks) only to back off when the chips are down, presumably after discovering that their more hawkish opinions aren’t well received at cocktail parties.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>