Post's Edgy Editorial Reeks of Recklessness

Today's Post editorial scorns the Bush Administration's support for Israel's Prime Minister Sharon during an election year....its political pandering!

Read below to understand Post-style pandering.

"Mr. Bush's concessions have exacerbated an already parlous U.S. diplomatic position in the Middle East; Mr. Sharon, meanwhile, has suffered a string of reverses in his attempt to carry out the withdrawal. The administration might have responded by reassessing its reliance on a notoriously reckless leader. Instead, Mr. Bush has doubled up on his bet. "

Here's how they conclude,

"The fact that the White House has taken this position at a time when Mr. Bush is seeking support from pro-Israel voters in Florida and other closely contested states will raise reasonable questions about whether there are any grounds for his position other than electoral pandering."

Reading between the lines, wouldn't a reasonable person infer that the Post editor wants the Administration to pander to Palestinian terrorists, not Florida (read Jewish) votors.

Moreover the Post is wrong. The Administration's settlement concessions occured early in the Bush administration, when they were known as the Powell-Peres understanding.

Real journalist Janine Zacharia has the analysis in the Jpost here where she writes:

"Israeli officials say the Bush administration has privately endorsed the so-called Peres-Powell formula, hashed out between former foreign minister Shimon Peres and Secretary of State Colin Powell, which says: There will be no new settlements built; no confiscation of new land for residential activities; construction only in already built-up areas; and that the issue of settlements should be resolved as part of a final peace agreement.

"These are the understandings. They accept it," an Israeli official said. "They did not change their policy in terms of new settlements. But they came to grips with reality [and the need to allow for natural growth]." "Everybody knows the United States does not object to natural growth," Abington said. "Over a year ago we knew what the [White House] National Security Council was thinking about was this concept of a settlement freeze, which basically drops the idea of natural growth."

Wrong on facts and morals, it seems to me that the Post editorial is reckless.

In fact, I'll bet the American voter understands pandering when they see it...... and will vote for Israel everytime.