A 'fight for another day'?

The New York Times opines today in A Burial at Ramallah that the agreement between the Palestininian Authority and the Nation of Israel on a burial plot for Yassir Arafat is a small start toward peace. Which leads us to wonder, for the umpteenth time, who hires these writers at the NYT?

Yassir's remains will rest in Ramallah not as the compromise triumph of diplomats but because Israel said no to Jerusalem (and also because PA can't keep Arafat on ice forever). If the late chairman wanted a Jerusalem burial plot, he should have been courageous enough to claim a peace deal when he had the opportunity and rejected terrorism as a tactic. He did neither.

Lest we forget on whose side the NYT remains, consider this:

"Yesterday, bulldozers were clearing the way for the Ramallah burial site, which Palestinian leaders said would be temporary, until Palestinians got East Jerusalem back. That is undoubtedly a fight for another day. Right now, the Palestinians will be able to bury their leader with dignity and respect. It's a start ..."

"A fight for another day"?

Undoubtedly. The Times mirrors the failure of world leadership on the Israeli-Palestinian issue by insisting that terrorists are really freedom fighters and that only Israel is required to make concessions (appeasements). Further, Israel's security needs are irrelevant in any "final solution" to the conflict.

At best this is simple-minded arrogance. At worst, hateful deceit. That's pretty much a good way to sum up Yassir's impact on the Middle East equation lo these last 48 years. That's about as much of a eulogy as we feel he deserves.