Financial Times: Israel Should Abide by Palestinian Demands

The Financial Times has been a long-time cheerleader for supposed Hamas “moderation”, blaming settlements for the impasse in the moribund peace process. This trend continues in the FT’s latest editorial. But what does this mean?

The move towards reconciliation with Fatah could encourage Hamas to moderate its positions further. Direct attacks on Israel have fallen sharply and as far back as 2007 Hamas agreed to respect PLO accords, which include recognition of Israel, in return for withdrawal to pre-1967 borders. Israel itself should abide by those deals.

As part of the Oslo Accords, Israel did indeed make agreements with the PLO. Withdrawing to the pre-1967 borders was certainly not one of those agreements, nor has it ever been agreed upon with the Palestinians. So why then should Israel abide by deals that it never made?

Is the FT just confused or is it really that one-sided?

Authors
Top
More in , (1 of 525 articles)
nytimesmagnifyinglass770x400


It's somewhat ironic that the New York Times chose to publish an opinion piece on the eve of Rosh Hashana, ...