Damned if you do...

...Damned if you don't

Let me see if I understand this:

Israel announced it will remove its settlements from Gaza, and was criticized by The Washington Post. Now Israel says it will remove some businesses from an area of Gaza where "at least 11 Israelis" have been killed by Palestinian attacks since November 2001, and is criticized by the Post.

In "Israelis to Quit Gaza Industrial Zone" (p. A17, 6/9/04) the Post, with "damned if you do, damned if you don't" reasoning, devotes 16 paragraphs of this article to criticisms of the action and to the economic hardship on Palestinians, and only 4 to Israeli reasons for the withdrawal. The criticism is emblazoned in the subheadline "Many Palestinians Will Lose Jobs at Border Site", but one has to wait until the fifth paragraph to learn that "at least 11 Israelis" (I think it's more) were killed in that area (without even stating that they were killed by Palestinian terrorists).

Does it occur to anyone at the Post that Israel can't both stay and not stay? Does it occur to the Palestinians that if they want Israel to keep its businesses there ("We need them for money", says a Palestinian tailor), perhaps they should stop the attacks? Or does everyone involved have an IQ in the single digits?

One wonders what Israel must do to please the Post. If it withdrew from the West Bank and Gaza, but left behind a $100,000 endowment for each Palestinian (with an extra bonus for the suicide bombers), would the Post then approve? Or would it take an actual act of self-destruction?