Notice how item 2) is given the short shrift. First the editorial describes Likud's response as "emotional" then it acknowledges that "...many ... believe he is risking the country's security." Now of course this understates the issue. First of all, two of the leading experts in Israel's defense establishment, Avi Dichter and Gen Moshe Ya'alon have predicted this will be a disaster from a security standoint. So their terms were ended by PM Sharon. Second of all even PM Sharon's government has designated 44 communities within the "green line" to be front line communities and given extra funds for anticipated security needs. That's hardly an emotional response; it's one based on the judgments of experts. To only acknowledge PM Sharon's own risk without seriously mentioning that of his constituents, is to be blatantly dishonest. (Just because your paper doesn't report the risks; doesn't mean they're not there.)

OK it's bad enough that the Post doesn't acknowledge the risks to Israel, but what happen if God forbid they come about? What then? Will the Post support Israel's right to defend itself?

Mr. Sharon's challenge is to manage the fissures his policy has aggravated in Israeli society while simultaneously exercising restraint in the face of Palestinian provocations if they occur....If isolated Palestinian attacks prompt Mr. Sharon to order that Israeli forces sweep and pulverize Gaza, he will only undercut Mr. Abbas and strengthen the hand of militant Palestinian groups, such as Hamas, that are vying for control of Palestinian territories.

I wonder how many Israelis being killed will change the terror from being mere "provocations" or "isolated ... attacks" to being reasons for an Israeli counterattack? Given the Post's editorial position - total silence - on continued Hezbollah attacks and provocations to Israel's north since Israel acceded to international law five years ago (remember that this international law is one that raises no concern over continued terror but condemns Israel for defending itself) my hopes are not great.
I haven't yet read the NY Times, I'm scared to. But in the case of the Post's editors, there's no excuse for their obliviousness towards Israel's risks unless they believe that "occupation" is some sort of unprecedented, incomparable evil. It isn't of course and anyone who believes it cannot be considered a friend of Israel. Or even an unbiased observer.
The Post has more pictures of the withdrawal. The Last Mourning and "An emotional exit." Item #4 in "An emotional exit" is of Hitler Hamas youth celebrating. There's something discomforting about their salute.
Item #1 in "The Last Mourning" is mis-captioned describing a young woman praying from a Torah. Others in that gallery of the cemeteries in Gush Katif make me wonder when my brother's friend, Rabbi Shimon Biran will be dug up. (Yes, if we're hoping for normalization why is there an assumption that any Jewish graves in Gaza will be defiled?)
Finally a reminder that later today the Post will be hosting 3 chats with David Makovsky of the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy at 11 AM EDT (see his recent op-ed here); Dr. Amiel Ungar at 12 Noon EDT (who was quoted in this article on Saturday) of the College of Judea and Samaria; and Lewis Roth of Americans for Peace Now at 2 PM EDT. I posted the following question for Mr. Roth:

Since Israel has withdrawn its troops from Lebanon, Hezbollah has maintained its arsenal, and continued attacking Israel occasionally killing Israelis - civilians included - across the UN certified border garnering virtually no outrage from the world community. Do you expect the same will happen following the Israel withdrawal from Gaza. Will the forces of the PA, Hamas and Islamic Jihad continue attacking Israel from Gaza evoking little or no outrage?

I wonder if he'll answer it.
UPDATE: I had inadvertantly left out the link to APN, but just added it. My brother e-mails me that Dichter, last week told and Israeli paper that disengagement would lead to a decrease in violence. I don't believe that's what he was saying when he was still working for the Israeli government. But I don't have time to look for documentation right now.
UPDATE: Here's an excellent, succinct formulation of the problem with Washington Post's editorial from fellow blogger Jewish Current Issues who commented on Soccer Dad:

The treatment of Palestinian attempts to kill Israelis as "isolated," but Israeli responses as "sweeping" and "pulverizing," does not even rise to the level of moral equivalence. It is language that simultaneously excuses terrorism and condemns defense. Absolutely disgusting.

I didn't have time to provide support for Avi Dichter's position on disengagement. This is from an editorial in Yedioth Achronot two months ago:

Yediot Aharonot, in its second editorial, surveys recent media interviews by former IDF chief of General Staff Moshe Yaalon and former ISA director Avi Dichter and suggests that, “Both of them are convinced that the Palestinians are not mature enough for a normal state of their own and are not yet ready for a true peace and historic reconciliation with Israel. Both of them say that the withdrawal from Gaza will be seen on the Palestinian street as a victory for the terrorist line. Both of them paint a reasonable portrait of a renewed outbreak of terrorism in a few months and an outraged Israeli reaction to it that will include the military reoccupation of parts of Gaza. And in the end, both Dichter and Yaalon have the same approach to disengagement: They see it as a tactical step only in which the costs must be unsentimentally weighed against the benefits. Yaalon emphasizes the costs, Dichter the benefits. This is an argument over the price and not over the merchandise.”

So Dichter did warn about the possibility of greater violence resulting from disengagement; he thought it was worth the price. His view has apparently changed somewhat:

And that reputation is now being exploited with a clear political purpose. Having come out in strong support of the plan to evacuate all 8,500 settlers from Gaza by force if they will not go voluntarily, Mr Dichter is Ariel Sharon's most potent weapon against the settlers' argument that withdrawal from Gaza is a "surrender to terrorism" and will increase rather than decrease attacks by Palestinian militants.

He argues that withdrawing from Gaza drastically reduces the "carpet of targets" open to militants in Gaza in the first place. He is optimistic that there won't be an organised outbreak of violence - as opposed to sporadic attacks like that on Kfar Darom yesterday - during the disengagement process against settlers and soldiers by Palestinian militants, who have been warned to expect heavy retaliation if there is. More importantly perhaps, he is sceptical that there will be after disengagement too.

Almost every settler you speak to in Gaza mentions the likelihood that Hamas will soon have the range to fire Qassams at Mr Dichter's own home town. Yet he professes bemusement that the international community sometimes seems disproportionately exercised about the militants' use of its makeshift artillery when its success has been so - relatively - small.

"From 600 to 700 Qassam rockets fired we suffered eight fatalities and from 3,500 mortar shells we suffered five fatalities. Which is one suicide bomber."

Technorati tag Israel.
Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.