Patterico's Pontifications

8/28/2003

MAYBE “UN” STOOD FOR THE

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 6:13 pm

MAYBE “UN” STOOD FOR THE “UNITED NATIONS”: The Washington Post has today a requiem for the “road map” titled All Sides Failed to Follow ‘Road Map’. The story contains this quote:

A mutual cease-fire was one of the first steps called for in the road map, and persuading the militants to unilaterally declare a truce was considered by the Abbas government to be a major achievement and goodwill gesture toward Israel. But Israel rejected the cease-fire as a ruse and never matched it.

The Post does not say whether Israel was right to see the so-called cease-fire as a ruse. Even assuming that the Post takes the position that it should not take sides, newspapers have a duty at least to report the relevant facts, so that readers can make up their own minds. Let’s look at some facts regarding whether the “acceptance” of the “cease-fire” was indeed a ruse — all facts that the Post does not bother to mention.

First, let’s look at what the “road map” requires. The text of the road map provides: “In Phase I, the Palestinians immediately undertake an unconditional cessation of violence according to the steps outlined below.”

Now here is a link to the text of the “acceptance” of the cease fire by Hamas and Islamic Jihad. The statement says, in relevant part, that these groups offer the “[s]uspension of the military operations against the Zionist enemy for three months, effective today, in return for the following conditions.”

“Conditions”?? Yes, “conditions.”

Several conditions are then set forth. One of the most obviously absurd and objectionable: “The release of all prisoners and detainees, Palestinian and Arab, from occupation prisons without condition or restriction. . . .” (Imagine if Al Queda offered us a three-month cease-fire, with numerous conditions that included releasing all incarcerated Al Queda terrorists.)

What part of “unconditional” does the Post not understand? I’ll tell you: the “un” part.

You should not be too surprised to learn that the rest of the article is little more than criticism of Israel and the United States, with only pro forma acknowledgments of Palestinian culpability.

Comments are closed.


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1785 secs.