Post lifts Abbas from Abyss

Our colleague, Barbara Leber deconstructs recent comPost editorial,

Barbara writes (as edited by yours truely)

The Post editorial joins the chorus of newsmen who question Abbas's recent actions--hey they're fair (not). But the editorial paints a picture that Abbas is good (nothing bad about him except his recent actions) but his behavior can be justified--

He is given the benefit of the doubt and even "some Israelis" attribute his behavior to "campaign rhetoric"). He didn't need to do these things (but some say it
might be helpful) and there are things he needs to do, but he will need
help. There are numerous gratuitous digs against the true aggressor Israel
and Sharon.

1. What is more troubling is the characterization of the Palestinian
goals: Abbas has a positive plan which could lead to democracy if he is
able to neutralize.....and Hamas only " is intent on its own goal of forcing
Israel to conduct a planned withdrawal from the Gaza Strip "under fire."
That's it? Nothing about taking over Israel.

2. The characterization of Abbas -- "a strong and courageous opponent of violence against Israel"? What has he done?

The statement that because Abbas was "(A)ngered by an exchange of fire
between militants and the Israeli army that killed several apparently
innocent Palestinian youths, he referred to Israel as "the Zionist enemy"

But how does the editor know that Abbas was "angered," and why
justify those words, when one could just has easily have claimed that he said what he really thought about the Israelis and that he was just trying to get votes. And was it just an exchange of fire between militants and the army? (though he covers himself with the apparently innocent) or was it terrorists trying to kill innocent
Israelis and Israelis trying to protect themselves.

There was nothing that explained that he has been a long-time adherent, supporter, and leader of the PLO and right arm for Arafat. And Aaron Mannes's characterization of Abbas from his book "Profiles in Terror" (at the end of this e-mail) includes the point that Abbas wrote that he thinks peace will destroy Israel more effectively than
violence.

3. And why the digs at Sharon? ("Unlike Ariel Sharon, he [Abbas] endorsed
without qualification Bush's road map") Why this gratuitous and simplistic
statement? Perhaps to make Abbas look better by saying that Sharon is no saint and
without indicating why it might be more in the Palestinians' interest to
endorse the road map without qualification. And the onus is again largely on
Sharon to make it work--Mr. Abbas will need a lot of help to crack this
problem. To begin with, Israel must give the new president time to pursue
his political strategy and be willing to answer a Palestinian ceasefire
with at least a tacit truce of its own. Mr. Sharon may need prodding on
that point from the Bush administration--"

4. And why the negative characterization of the Israelis who, it would seem,
are the real aggressors who kill and imprison--somehow Abbas's "positive strategy" and his plan with "virtue" would offer protection to the "militants" from the "deadly Israeli campaign of targeted killings" and give
"freedom" to those in prison

Great job Barbara....comPost double standard takes another pounding.