At first glance, this seems like a refreshingly fair editorial on the Gaza situation:
When Cpl. Gilad Shalit was abducted by the military wing of Mr. Haniyeh’s Hamas movement last weekend, his administration faced a choice. It could behave like a civilized government — and work to free the hostage — or align itself with a terrorist operation. It chose the latter. Hamas government officials endorsed the militants’ demand that Israel release Palestinian prisoners it has legally arrested in exchange for a soldier who was attacked while guarding Israeli territory. Hamas justified this position by citing the terrorist movement Hezbollah, which has extracted prisoners from Israel in exchange for hostages, as well as governments that exchange POWs in wartime.
Fair enough. But if Hamas wants to be equated with Hezbollah or define itself as at war with Israel, then Israel has every right to try to destroy the Islamic movement’s military capacity, to capture its leaders (it has arrested more than 60 since Wednesday, including eight cabinet ministers) and to topple its government. Isn’t that what happens in war?
[…] The restraint reflects recognition by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that Israel stands only to lose if the Palestinian Authority is destroyed by force. Cpl. Shalit probably can be saved only by a Palestinian political decision, and Israeli forces will have trouble retiring from Gaza and stopping further rocket launchings and abductions, unless they can reach a truce with Hamas. Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who has been trying to draw Hamas’s political wing into an alliance with his secular Fatah movement, could still play a role in brokering such an accord. But he needs more help than he is getting from Egypt, other Arab states and the United Nations. Instead of fulminating about supposed Israeli war crimes, these actors ought to be demanding that Hamas — and its sponsors in Damascus and Tehran — stop their own acts of terrorism and war.
Yes, it’s completely refreshing to read, for the most part. But I have one question to ask the WaPo editors:
Why publish it on Saturday? Why on the least-read day of the week? Why wasn’t this deemed important enough for the Sunday edition?
Shyeah. Israel Derangement Syndrome strikes again. Can’t stand with Israel on a day when people are actually going to read the stance.
I don’t agree 100% with some of the stuff at the end of the editorial. But what’s remarkable is that almost seems as a rebuke to its Israel correspondent Scott Wilson who’s been playing up (with no evidence) the difference between the Hamas government and the militants.
Pingback: Soccer Dad