In "Middle East Stirrings" the editors of the Washington Post write:

In the coming months the Israeli leader will claim, with some justification, to be taking painful steps forward, when they relate to his own ambitions. The question is whether he can be induced to take other actions in keeping with Mr. Bush's goal of a two-state solution. In the near term, these include the dismantling of checkpoints and illegal settlement outposts in the West Bank, the release of some Palestinian prisoners and, in the event of a Palestinian cease-fire, a suspension of Israeli attacks on Palestinian militants. If Palestinians elect a pro-peace leadership, Mr. Sharon ought to be willing to open negotiations on a handover in Gaza, and renew final settlement discussions.

Similarly in "Timely Help for the Palestinians" a week later, the editors of the New York Times assert:

The news that the United States, Europe and Arab countries are considering giving the Palestinians a four-year aid package of $6 billion to $8 billion is like a cold drink of water on a hot day in Gaza. This is an excellent way to build on the positive murmurings that have been coming out of Ramallah, Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.

The proposal comes with conditions. After the Palestinian elections set for Jan. 9, the new government must crack down on armed groups. Donors are also calling for Israel to remove scores of roadblocks and checkpoints. While those checkpoints have undoubtedly reduced the number of attacks by suicide bombers, they have made it virtually impossible for average Palestinians to move freely, whether going to the polls or simply trying to go to work.

Israel, for its part, is committed to removing many of the checkpoints to facilitate the easy access of Palestinian Arabs to polling places. But now, Israel's Military Intelligence is saying that there's a real threat. At least the Times' editors acknowledge that the checkpoints have "undoubtedly reduced the number of attacks by suicide bombers," but will they now praise Israel for facilitating the election despite a very real threat? Will the editors of the Post? Or will they simply digest Israel's risky gesture and ask for the next one in a few weeks regardless of the cost?
This is my problem. Those who claim that they want peace are perfectly willing to ask Israel to disarm in the face of continual threats but refuse to acknowledge the risk and God forbid the costs. It's as if they believe once Israel hands over all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza they expect there to be peace in the Middle East. And what happens when Israel does that, and the Palestinian Arabs still have demands on Israel? Will they say enough? Or will they still be egging Israel on to continue making concessions that gain Israel nothing and simply put it at greater risk?
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.