President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel satisfied their short-term political goals with an Oval Office meeting on Tuesday. It is less clear that they achieved much of substance.

So what now?

Mr. Obama is going to have to keep working hard to persuade Mr. Netanyahu that a peace deal with the Palestinians is also essential for Israel’s long-term security, the health of its democracy and its international standing — and not just something he has to try to mollify Washington.

This is funny, because before Netanyahu became Prime Minister, Mahmoud Abbas rejected a peace deal from then PM Olmert, just as Arafat rejected a peace deal from then PM Barak. If peace is so essential, why the do Palestinian leaders reject offers out of hand? Even if they think that the Israeli offers aren’t sufficient, why are they simply rejecting them rather than bringing counteroffers?

Might it be because they (Abbas and Arafat) view the lack of a peace deal to be to Israel’s detriment (and their advantage)? Certainly if the Times insists that despite Palestinian rejections, Israel is the party needing the deal, they are encouraging the Palestinians to reject future deals too.

The Palestinians need a peace process not peace. The peace process keeps them in the news and makes them indispensible. Peace means that they actually have to govern themselves and stay out of the news. Apparently the editors of the Times are happy to encourage further Palestinian rejectionism.

Finally we get to this paragraph:

President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority and his government also must do their part, doing more to discourage incitement against Israel — and seriously preparing to make the hard choices that peace will inevitably require.

“[D]oing more to discourage incitement against Israel?” Like the smoker who claims that he’s experienced at quitting because he’s already quit smoking five times, Abbas is expected to “discourage incitement” by the editors of the New York Times. Where exactly have they been these past (nearly) 17 years? Daniel Pipes asks:

Under Yasir Arafat, the Palestine Liberation Organization notoriously said one thing to Arab/Muslim audiences and the opposite to Israeli/Western ones, speaking venomously to the former and in dulcet tones to the latter. What about Arafat’s mild-mannered successor, Mahmoud Abbas? Did he break from this pattern of duplicity or continue it?

and answers:

Abbas and Fayyad spoke in English to Americans and Israelis, Erekat spoke in Arabic to Palestinians. Both statements cannot be true; one must be a lie. Which one, I wonder?

Palestinians play this transparent and simple-minded double game because it works. Israeli, American, and others too often accept the dulcet tones they hear directly and dismiss reports of harsh words they only hear about. The Palestinian Authority will blithely continue to spew its lies until the world heeds and rejects, for rewarding bad behavior invariably brings on more bad behavior.

Incitement is the official language of the PA. Blithely asking Abbas at this late date to stop incitement is a sign of unseriousness. This probably ought to be one of the major demands of anyone who truly wants peace.

I understand that the editors of the Times don’t trust Netanyahu. During his first term in office he withdrew Israeli forces from most of Hebron. That was a concrete action undertaken in the name of peace. Other than mouthing the right words in English, can the editors of the Times point to any action that Abbas has taken to promote peace?

By their willful ignorance it is clear that the editors of the Times don’t much care about peace, just about pressuring Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Fatah blames Israel for Arafat’s AIDS: Not really. Fatah refuses to even consider the idea that their dead (and unmourned) leader did not die because of Israeli death rays, or Mossad poisons. Because it makes them far more popular to be able to blame Israel. And oh, hey—this kind of puts the lie to the people who insist that Fatah is moderating, doesn’t it?

Doggone it! My dad was not a dog! The Arabs have yet another grievance against America: A movie that insults Anwar Sadat by naming a dog after him. I swear, you simply couldn’t make this stuff up without having bullshit called on you. Don’t these people have anything else to do but get outraged over stupid things? I guess not, considering Egypt is a nation that lacks freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and a freely elected government. And then, you get a breath of fresh air when you least expect it:

Meanwhile, Sadat’s nephew Talaat Sadat reacted differently to the movie, and told Egyptian newspaper al-Shuruq: “It’s just a commercial film that is not worthy of a response.”

Stop doing the right things, Bibi! Israel’s prime minister visited the Tel Aviv club that was the scene of a horrible attack that murdered two young gay Israelis and listened to representatives of the Israeli gay community. That’s funny. I thought he was one of those religious zealots in the Likud that think gays are an abomination. What? People are spreading lies about him? No! You can’t mean it! Just because he’s acting like a good leader today doesn’t mean that tomorrow he’s going to come out and suggest gays should be stoned. (By the way, they’ll find the bastard who did this. This is the nation that tracks down terrorists years after their attacks. Give them time. They’ll get him.)

Because the world simply doesn’t have enough online games: Champions is joining the online gaming community. I absolutely refuse to say why I know what Champions is. I will only admit that Call of Cthulhu was an awesome game if run by a great gamemaster and peopled by decent players. Not that I know anything about it. Really. I don’t. (Detectives are so cool, don’t you think?)