Meryl writes The unnoticed intransigence vs. the supposed intransigence, which analyzes a recent AP report about the Middle East. Meryl observes:
If you read only the mainstream media reports on Israel, you come away thinking that it is the Israelis who are the obstacles to peace, and that it is the Palestinians who are the ones who are willing to make concessions to create a Palestinian state.
That is, until you actually read what the leaders of the two nations are actually saying.
It’s a point that’s discussed in today’s Wall Street Journal, A Palestinian choice, which concludes:
Responding to Mr. Netanyahu’s speech, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs called it an “important step forward,” but offered little more than that. The Administration could help matters more by providing the Israelis with greater assurances that they won’t simultaneously demand further Israeli concessions while doing nothing serious to stop Iran — a leading patron of Hamas — from getting nuclear weapons. A Palestinian state poses enough challenges to Israeli security without it being an atomic spearpoint.
As for the Palestinians, for too long they have practiced a kind of fantasy politics, in which all right was on their side, concession was dishonor, and mistakes never had consequences. It hasn’t earned them much. Mr. Netanyahu’s speech now offers them the choice between fantasy and statehood. Judging from early reactions, they’re choosing wrongly again.
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
“As for the Palestinians, for too long they have practiced a kind of fantasy politics, in which all right was on their side, concession was dishonor, and mistakes never had consequences.”
Excuse me? The Palestinians may be basically a death cult, they may elevate suicde/murder to a religious duty, but they’re not stupid. Why on earth would the Palestinians cease practicing fantasy politics? The world has been telling them for over six decades that they can do so.