Soccer Dad

NY times editorial leads fight against extremism

In an excellent editorial today, the New York Times leads the fight against extremism and terror in the Middle East:

For too long Mr. Abbas has complained that he doesn't have the power to confront Hamas and other militant organizations under his jurisdiction. That excuse just won't do anymore. The Palestinians have their own territory in which they can work unimpeded. If Mr. Abbas cannot now order his well armed police to do the job they were empowered to do and dismantle these organizations - even using violence, if necessary - then the Palestinians will have shown that they are not ready to rule themselves.

Ever since the Oslo Accords were signed, the Palestinian Authority was obligated to take this action. Mr. Abbas's predecessor, Yasser Arafat, always made excuses why he couldn't confront Hamas while he actually supported them. If Mr. Abbas is to have any credibility with Israel - or the world for that matter - he must act decisively now.

We hope he will use the opportunity afforded him by Israel's courageous and risky withdrawal from Gaza by telling his people that they must forswear violence as a means of getting Israel to make further withdrawals and back up his words with decisive actions. The last thing he should do is allow pressure from terrorist organizations to steer him away from the path that the Palestinians have to pursue if they ever expects to make peace with Israel.

The time for excuses is over.

Didn't read that in the Times today? No. Of course not. The editors of the New York Times are not concerned with the growing power of a terrorist organization. No they're more concerned with a political party, the Likud in Israel. None of the post-withdrawal violence perpetrated by the Palestians has warranted an editorial comment by the Times ( the burning of synagogues, the missiles fired, or even the lack of gun control in Gaza ). But the idea that a legitimate political party is in power upsets them so much that they followed columnist Thomas Friedman's concerns and wrote an editorial lecturing Israel's prime minister on his duty to his country in "Ariel Sharon's choice: Israel or Likud.":

We hope that while Mr. Netanyahu is planning his next maneuver, Mr. Sharon will use this reprieve to continue the disengagement policy that he began with the successful Gaza pullout. The last thing he should do is allow pressure from the right within Likud to steer him away from the path that Israel has to pursue if it ever expects to make peace with the Palestinians.

This is utterly perverse.

UPDATE: Thanks to Media Backspin and Mediacrity for mentioning this post. Mediacrity asks:

Let's see if you can guess the target of the editorial:

1. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terrorists who have been firing rockets at Israel.

2. Egypt, which stood by and watched as arms flowed into Gaza, in violation of an agreement with Israel.

3. The Palestinian Authority, whose weakness and complicity with terror has been proven yet again.

4. Ariel Sharon.

He only needs to apply his Sulzburger Indifference Template to determine the answer.

Technorati Tags: Israel, media bias, New York Times.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.