It’s rather astonishing, when you consider how the editorial pages of the New York Times are reflexively designed around opposition to George W. Bush, to see the continued strong (and absolutely correct) stance it maintains towards Hamas. Today’s editorial is a strong, brief statement that has a moral clarity so rarely found in the pages of the great paper these days:
America cannot bankroll a Hamas government that preaches and practices terrorism, denies that Israel has any right to exist, and refuses to abide by peace agreements signed by previous Palestinian governments. That should be blindingly obvious. America is engaged in a global armed struggle against terrorism. It is firmly allied with Israel and is committed to Israel’s survival.
Hamas won the recent Palestinian election fair and square. American officials, who say they are so forcefully committed to the cause of expanding democracy in the Middle East, should not even entertain the idea of doing anything to try to somehow undermine the results and install a different government. But that does not mean continuing to provide the subsidies that help pay for the Palestinian police, civil servants and other employees.
The Palestinian Authority is having a genuine financial crisis, but it is not America’s responsibility. Continuing United States subsidies while Hamas is in power will not move the region one step closer to a fair and sustainable peace.
I couldn’t have said it better myself…
March 4th, 2006 at 11:20 am
I remember you said the same thing when the Times said the Iraqi election was “glorious” (”I can’t believe I read this in the Times!”). And I believe there was another occasion when you feigned shock that the Times took what you thought was a reasonable position.
Could it be that maybe — just maybe — the Times takes a clear-eyed look at the world, and it is Bush and Cheney who are wrong most of the time?
March 4th, 2006 at 11:42 am
It’s possible…but not very likely…far more common are ridiculous editorials from the Time and reasonable ones from the Washington Post. You can be liberal and still not define yourself in opposition…
March 4th, 2006 at 12:05 pm
[…] 2008 : Mar 4th - 11:05am « The One Thing Gail Collins Gets Right […]