Friday, June 23, 2006

Guardian: Hamas accepts Israel! Hamas: No, we don't!

Yesterday, in another example of astonishingly clueless reporting, Chris McGreal of The Guardian breathlessly reported a scoop:
Climbdown as Hamas agrees to Israeli state
Hamas has made a major political climbdown by agreeing to sections of a document that recognise Israel's right to exist and a negotiated two-state solution, according to Palestinian leaders.
Wonderful! Now we can go back to giving billions of Euros to terrorists, the way life was meant to be! After all - it isn't their fault:
Israel has dismissed the prisoners' document as changing little because, among other things, it advocates continued resistance. But a complete renunciation of violence is unlikely to come while Israeli attacks continue to claim the lives of innocent Palestinians.
It is Israel's fault that Hamas likes to kill Jews! So it is unrealistic to expect the government of a statelet to stop killing the children and grandparents in the neighboring state. That's just crazy talk!

Alas, facts seem to have gotten in the way of this reporter's fantasies:
Hamas has blasted Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for suggesting that the Islamic militant group may accept a two-state solution and recognize Israel.

A Hamas statement faxed to United Press International's Beirut office Thursday said Abbas' declaration "only reflects his views, not those of Hamas, which is perfectly capable of expressing its stance and does not need a spokesman."

Hamas strongly criticized Abbas for meeting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert during their participation in the conference, in Petra, south Jordan, as guests of honor.

The statement described Abbas' remarks on Hamas' possible acceptance of a two-state solution as "strange and unaccepted," and accuses him of "provocation against Hamas and exaggeration in holding it responsible for the present situation."

Does anyone think for even a moment that the editors at the Guardian will hold a reporter responsible for such a wrong piece? No, McGreal will continue his biased analyses disguised as reporting facts for as long as he wants.
(H/T: Backspin for the Guardian article.)