We have in the past noted that The Economist magazine has a typically European elitist view toward America (particularly in its ridicule of Christians). The editors also have a very biased view towards Israel. The current issue has yet another editorial that advocates Israel and the world "break bread" with Hamas and reach a deal with the Hamas-led "government".
The Economist did take note that Hamas has refused to abide by the three major principles of the Road Map that the Palestinians had previously agreed to do, to wit: recognize Israel's right to exist, renounce terror and violence, and agree to abide by previous agreements. Despite these failures, the editorial board writes that the Road Map principles should be ignored and that it is time to soften economic pressure and negotiate statehood for the Palestinians. The last line of the piece says it all about the philosophy of the magazine:
"It will be hard, but this is a better way to win the argument against Hamas than the past year's vain efforts to make the Palestinians jump through verbal hoops they have come to consider humiliating".
Got that? Recognizing Israel's right to exist, forswearing violence, and abiding by past agreements and promises are considered "humiliating" by the magazine.
(For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Page. Email me (John Ray) here.)