If this truce does indeed take hold, it will be by far the second smartest thing - after electing Mr. Abbas as their leader - that the Palestinians have done in years. Mr. Abbas deserves credit as the only real Palestinian leader who candidly acknowledges what the world has always known. Palestinian violence against Israel is pointless, and has served only to bring forth overwhelmingly punishing responses. From the start of the intifada, back in 2000, Mr. Abbas warned that it was counterproductive, and that years of pointless carnage later, Palestinians would be back at square one, except poorer, more tired, held in lower esteem by the world. In addition, Palestinian violence cost the Palestinians something they dearly need if they will ever get a state they can live with: American support.

The world has always know that "Palestinian violence against Israel is pointless?" How do the editors of the Times conclude that? If not for Palestinian violence its doubtful that their cause would have been given the attention and legitimacy it was. The violence was ascribed to Palestinian rage over frustrated aspirations rather than to the antisemitism that was at its heart. Here's from an editorial two months ago, "Mr. Sharon, You're Up At Bat."

A peace deal will be possible only if a new Palestinian leader can establish enough authority to prepare the Palestinian people for what they must accept if they ever want an independent state: a Jerusalem shared between the two countries, final borders based on 1967 lines and a recognition that for all but a symbolic handful of refugees, the right of return will be to a new Palestinian state, not to Israel. Such a deal was difficult enough for Mr. Arafat to accept; it will be even harder for a new leader who comes to the table with only a fraction of Mr. Arafat's authority with his people.

In other words after 11+ years of bad faith negotiations by the Palestinians and 4 year old war against Israel, The Times was still advocating the same maximum position it adhered to before. The Times is arguing that all the violence did not cost the Palestinians a thing except for a delay in realizing their supposed aspirations. And the editorial then had the gall to put the onus for making peace on PM Sharon. It's not much different now:

Without Washington pushing from behind, it is doubtful that the Israeli prime minister, Ariel Sharon, will go anywhere near a negotiating table.

Washington's support has always been a hindrance to peace not a help. Arafat, who the Times only now recognizes as an obstacle to peace, was coddled by the Clinton administration (and rhetorically by media outlets such as the New York Times) making him demand more and more while giving nothing to Israel. Meanwhile PM Netanyahu who withdrew Israeli troops from most of Hebron was demonized as an obstacle to peace. PM Sharon has indicated that he will talk with Abbas if Abbas carries through on his commitments. At this point that should be enough for the Times. (The fact that he quickly re-established ties with the PA after he broke them off in response to the recent terror attack orchestrated by the PA security forces in Gaza shows his good faith toward Abbas.) I'm not saying that there's nothing different now. It appears that Abbas is saying and doing things that Arafat would never do. But that's a far cry from being sufficient actions or attitude changes for there to be peace. Instead of treating Abbas's words as precious gems the Times would do well to attach a bit of skepticism to its observations. Consider the following item from today's Jerusalem Post:

In the run-up to the PA election on January 9, Abbas met with the head of the Palestinian Broadcasting Authority and asked him to check all programs aired on PA television to prevent the broadcast of inciting material. Since then, Marcus said that nationalistic programming calling for violence against Israel has decreased somewhat, but that anti-Semitic rhetoric has remained unabated.

He pointed to January 14, when he said an imam gave a sermon declaring, "The days of the pilgrimage to Mecca remind the Muslim of the connection to his history and remind him of his past glory and the lowliness of the Jews, who today rule the world; how Muhammad expelled them from Medina in retribution for their actions and their hostility and their corruption, and not on false charges, not unjustly. No, it was retribution for their hostility toward Islam."

It is important to document this phenomenon, he said, because many people view the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as centered on political issues, when the Palestinians have tied redemption to killing Jews. "It's not connected to borders, it's not connected to compromise, and no compromise will be reached [once] it's a battle of God against the Jews."

"As in Nazi Germany, there is an entire 'culture of hatred' in Palestinian society today, from textbooks to crossword puzzles, from day camps to TV music videos," Sharansky charged in a statement issued by his office ahead of the press conference. "Calling for the murder of Jews, as Jews, is the end result."

In other words despite the good words, there are some things that haven't changed. The Times really doesn't care.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.