Semantics of peace
Last week the NY Times complained about “The Semantics of Mideast Peace“
It is a sign of how desperately hopeless things are in the Middle East that diplomats immediately seized on the phrasing — which brought up the possibility of a two-state solution, albeit in the negative — as a ray of light. Mr. Zahar said Israel’s “illegal colonial policies” would “ultimately diminish any hopes for the achievement of settlement and peace based on a two-state solution.”
Yes, it is remarkable. It’s amazing how the degree to which news organizations look for moderation in the words of Hamas. Here’s the The Washington Post for example
Hamas has said repeatedly it will not revise its positions, though some leaders of the group have hinted at a readiness to moderate.
The problem is that this phony “moderation” is passed off as progress and the the NY Times has been as likely to play along with it as any other organization. In fact it could be argued that the situation is so hopeless because of all those who falsely read moderation into the words and actions of the Palestinians. Instead of encouraging the creation of a leadership that was committed to peace with Israel, the world assumed that such existed and ignored all evidence to the contrary. And later in the editorial that’s exactly what the Times does
Israel hasn’t helped matters with its refusal to transfer to the Palestinian Authority the tax revenues that it collects for the authority.
Israel hasn’t helped matter by not funding an organization that wants its destruction. I don’t know that there’s anything surprising or condemnable about that except in the world where peace is just another million or two dollars away and we’re too dense to understand that peace and co-existence is at hand.
Technorati tags: Israel, media bias, Hamas.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad..
