Wolfensohn said Israel had failed to move forward on proposals to improve various crossings between Israel and Gaza, to arrange passage between the strip and the West Bank and to accept European supervision of the Egypt-Gaza border crossing. "In the meantime, the flow of workers and goods from Gaza to Israel has ground to a halt," he wrote. "In substance, the parties are not far from agreement, but they are finding that old habits die hard," Wolfensohn wrote in the letter, a copy of which was provided to The Washington Post after details were first reported Monday in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

"The Government of Israel, with its important security concerns, is loath to relinquish control, almost acting as though there has been no withdrawal, delaying making difficult decisions and preferring to take difficult matters back into slow-moving subcommittees," the letter said. "The Palestinian Authority has undergone further erosion in its capacity to cohere around key issues, and in some cases must come forward with creative proposals of its own."

And what, pray tell, may account for this delay? Might it be those "important security concerns" that Wolfensohn insincerely acknowledges even as he denies Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza.

What would be the most significant signs that it's as if Israel hadn't withdrawn from Gaza?

That terror from the PA has continued unabated?

That rockets still hit southern Israel?

That Abbas still refuses to disarm Hamas?

That Egypt has refused to fulfill its agreement and control the Gaza-Egypt border crossings?

If one were an objective observer, any of the PA's (or Egypt's) breaches would be cause for Israeli caution.

(It's also worth noting that Wilson, in his article about the Chadera bombing attributes the terror to:

Islamic Jihad officials said the attack was retaliation for the killing of Luay Saadi, the leader of the group's military wing in the West Bank, by Israeli soldiers in a raid Monday near the West Bank city of Tulkarm. He was from Atil, a West Bank town about 15 miles east of here where Islamic Jihad has a strong political and military presence.

but doesn't mention what the Jerusalem Post reported:

The suicide bomber was identified as 20-year-old Hassan Abu Zeid, from the West Bank village of Kabatiya. He reportedly served time in an Israeli prison, but was released because he was classified as not having blood on his hands. Police and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) are focusing on how he entered Israel and managed to reach the market.

In the Washington Post's world, apparently killing terrorists causes more terror, but releasing them from prison does not.)

Compare Wilson's treatment of Israel (as he offers no dissent from Israeli sources to Wolfesohn) to his treatment of the terrorist group Islamic Jihad:

Islamic Jihad, which has refused to recognize Israel, signed on to a temporary cease-fire in March that required an end to offensive operations against Israel. But the group's compliance has been inconsistent, and Israeli troops have killed a number of its fighters during that time.

A little bit pregnant anyone?

(Or for a Star Trek reference:

My logic is uncertain where my son is concerned.

is what the logical Vulcan Sarek says concerning his son. He doesn't mean uncertain - he means non-existent.)

Either Islamic Jihad is compliant or it isn't. It's not inconsistently compliant.

The article about the Chadera bombing is even more telling:

The group had pledged in March to observe a cease-fire that called for an end to offensive operations against Israel. That agreement was arranged by Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas after nearly five years of a violent uprising. But Islamic Jihad has been the most inconsistent follower of the informal truce, and Israeli troops have killed a number of its fighters in recent months.

Despite the murky language, Wilson, here, is admitting that none of the terror groups have observed the cease fire, Islamic Jihad has just been the most blatant violator! But why can't he come out and write that? Why does Wilson accept Wolfensohn's criticisms of Israel at face value - surely he could have accurately noted continuing security threats as a reason for Israel's reticence to open Gaza more fully - but makes excuses for the Palestinian terror organizations. This is not, by any means objective reporting.

Technorati Tags: media bias, Israel.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.