Last week, I wrote "Story in the headlines" which juxtaposed headlines of Pakistan's distress in the face of a devastating with its refusal to acknowledge Israel's offer of help immediately. But then I heard that Pakistan had indeed accepted the Israeli aid and was ready to acknowledge that my criticism was premature.

But as Jeff Jacoby noted in "Pakistan's dirty laundering:

Yet it was not until Oct. 14, six days after Israel had communicated its willingness to help the earthquake victims ''in any way possible," that it finally received a formal response. Yes, aid from Israel would be welcome, provided it was laundered through a third party. ''We have established the president's relief fund, and everyone is free to contribute to it," a government spokeswoman coolly acknowledged. ''If Israel was to contribute -- that's fine, we would accept it." Israel could help save Pakistani lives, in other words, as long as it wasn't too public about doing so. There mustn't be any embarrassing images of planes with Israeli markings offloading relief supplies at Islamabad's airport.

And no one should imagine that Israel's generosity toward a nation that has long been among its harshest critics and in which anti-Semitism is rampant would have any effect on Islamabad's thinking. According to the Daily Times, a Pakistani newspaper, the spokeswoman insisted that ''accepting an indirect donation from Israel did not mean that Pakistan had planned to recognize it" or to alter its stance toward Israel, ''which was unchangeable."

I saw no comments of outrage on righteous editorial pages. I heard no clarity of thought from the Bush administration that hatred that causes people to die is unacceptable in our day and age.

No. The silence was deafening.

Today, the Washington Post is unperturbed that Hamas should be seeking a seat at the table of the Palestinian government. In "A vote for Hamas?" seems more perturbed that

"Israel and its advocates in Washington have launched an aggressive campaign to convince the administration that Hamas must be banned unless it disarms and modifies its ideology."

than that Mahmoud Abbas is once again weaseling out of his "Road Map" obligations.

In fact, the Post instead of honestly assessing Abbas's performance writes:

Mr. Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, agrees in principle that Hamas should abandon violence; he argues that he has pressured the Islamists into observing a cease-fire for most of this year. But his aides say that Palestinian security forces would probably lose if they challenged Hamas. Mr. Abbas's strategy is to do his best to defeat Hamas at the polls, then ask the new legislature to require all armed groups to disband. He hopes Palestinian public opinion will force the militants to comply. Recent polls show that up to 60 percent support Hamas's disarmament.

This is the charade of weakness that Arafat relied upon every time it was demanded that he fulfill any of the basic steps for peace Oh Hamas is too strong. How can we possibly stand up to such a powerful organization; let's co-opt them not confront them. Not only has the Washington Post not learned from the past it is effectively covering up the present.

(And by the way, what is the source of those polls cited in the editorial?)

The Jerusalem Post's Khaled Abu Toameh who actually reports what's going on with Abbas instead of making excuses for him wrote:

On the eve of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas's visit to Washington, the PA announced that it has no intention of disarming Hamas or other armed groups.

Abbas is scheduled to arrive in Washington on Thursday for talks with US President George W. Bush on the latest developments in the West Bank and Gaza Strip in the aftermath of the Israeli disengagement. Sources close to Abbas said earlier this week that he would brief Bush on the PA's plan to confiscate "illegal" weapons that are in the hands of various factions and militias, including Hamas.

However, Abbas's national security advisor, Jibril Rajoub, denied on Tuesday that the PA was planning to disarm Hamas or any other armed group. "We haven't called for disarming anyone," Rajoub said. "There is no decision to collect [illegal] weapons and we haven't taken any steps in this direction."

The weapons of the "resistance" groups, Rajoub added, should remain intact and should not be used on the streets or to terrorize the PA and civilians. He admitted that the PA and its security forces had failed to deal with the state of anarchy that has swept the Gaza Strip after the Israeli withdrawal.

(Consider the gall of Abbas openly defying the American President on the eve of his visit to Washington. Back when defiance of the United States was the building of Jewish communities, the Washington Post did not forget to remind its readers who it thought to be at fault. Consider this excerpt from "Settling the Settlements Issue" from the Sept 18, 1991 edition:

The problem of the West Bank settlements cannot be put aside any longer. For years successive American administrations have rightly been urging Israel to curtail those settlements, pronouncing them illegal, subversive of peace or both. But particularly since 1977, when the right-wing Likud came to power, Israel has been expanding them, contemptuous of the pleas of Americans and others to save the issue for an Arab-Israeli negotiation.

But now when Abbas isn't even doing the minimum any sane person would consider necessary for peace in defiance of American policy, the Washington Post is there covering for him!)

But there are other problems with the editorial too.

The Post's editors write:

For the United States, the handling of Hamas is inseparable from a regional policy of democratization that, in its essence, is about channeling Islamic movements into electoral politics and away from terrorism. The strategy won't work if the Islamists refuse to give up terrorism, but it will also fail if, in countries such as Lebanon and Egypt as well as in the Palestinian territories, Islamic parties are prohibited from peaceful political competition. Perhaps that's why the administration so far has gingerly separated itself from Israel on this issue. Officials say Mr. Bush will press Mr. Abbas to pass and to apply the laws he plans before the elections and to exclude Hamas candidates linked to violence. But if the Palestinian leader persists in his strategy, the administration appears inclined reluctantly to go along rather than repudiate a moderate Palestinian leader or a potentially groundbreaking Middle East election.

First of all to call Hamas an "Islamic party" is simply disingenuous. The State Department's own definition of Hamas is that it is a terror organization. (Thanks to HonestReporting for the link.) And if Israel was considered violating a policy of the State Department would the Washington Post fail to inform its readers of that? Of course not.

In the final paragraph the editors write:

That seems like the right choice for now. But if Mr. Bush is going to keep betting on Mr. Abbas, he should do more to help him succeed. Palestinian security forces cannot confront Hamas partly because they lack adequate training and weapons.

This clearly implies that the Post's editors feel that the U.S. should bolster the Palestinian security forces. As Patrick Devenny noted recently in FrontPage magazine that arming even the supposed "good guys" in the PA will further the cause of terror not peace:

What distinguishes Jaara from many of his fellow Palestinian terrorist leaders is that he plied his bloody trade while simultaneously serving as an officer in the Palestinian Preventive Security Service, a body assigned with combating militants. His official status gave Jaara the ability to travel freely throughout the territories, enabling him to plan his attacks while enjoying the protection afforded to Palestinian officials by the Israelis. While his position gave him some advantages, Jaara was unhesitant when asked what single factor had most contributed to his transformation into a successful terrorist: small-arms training supervised by officers of the Central Intelligence Agency.

(And yes, if the Bush administration is doing as the Washington Post claims, it deserves just as much blame for encouraging terror and tolerating antisemitism in its anti-zionistic clothing.)

It would appear that there's a level on antisemitism or anti-Israel that is all too easily tolerated in certain enlightened precints of the West.

Technorati Tags: anti semitism, media bias, Israel.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.