This was reinforced in a Guardian column written that day by Palestinian Hamas supporter Karma Nabulsi, disgusted at the Palestinian leaders, practically spitting as she rejects the idea of concessions and states that "had such deals eventually come to light, Palestinians would have rejected them comprehensively". Her solution? The restoration of the "Palestinian revolution", a barely hidden reference to the intifada.
Two days after it's amazing scoop, the Guardian, red-faced, looked around and saw that strangely, the other newspapers didn't seem to agree that the Palestinians and Hamas should be able to do whatever-the-hell they want. The other newspapers seemed to think it was a good thing that the Palestinians were actually considering negotiating! That it might be a sign that at some point there could be peace!
So the Guardian backtracked and wrote an editorial to clarify, in case people somehow got the idea that it is anti-Israel and more terrorist than Hamas:
"Let there be no doubt. A two-state solution remains the only show in town... But such a deal requires both sides to make difficult concessions; in other conflicts we always praise those who do so."The next day, though, they published an article by Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan, who blathers on about repression, betrayal and treason, before offering his idea on how to solve - sorry, I mean prolong - the conflict:
"As an immediate response to these revelations, we in Hamas have begun a series of communications and meetings with Palestinian factions and prominent personalities to discuss practical measures. It is our responsibility to regain the initiative in order to protect our cause and isolate those who have betrayed it."This isn't so far off what the Guardian said in their first editorial: like Hamas they view Fatah as traitors and incompetent in their approach to negotiations, (and, needless to say, Israel as well); and they place their trust in Hamas by calling for their legitimisation and acceptance.
In case Hamdan wasn't clear in his article, by "cause" he means the destruction of Israel, and the "practical measures" he refers to are terror attacks on Israeli civilians. The day after that article, the Guardian published a reader's letter that abandons all pretence and euphemisms, claiming that the leaks show that:
"the Palestinians have a moral right to their terrorism within historic Palestine against neo-Zionism... Terrorism, as in this case, can as exactly be self-defence, a freedom struggle, martyrdom, the conclusion of an argument based on true humanity".The Guardian defended this letter as not going against their policy "not to publish letters advocating violence against others", claiming that the letter is "about the way language is used... he [the letter-writer Ted Honderich] is not advocating suicide bombing."
I think Honderich would beg to differ, seeing as he's made it quite clear that by stating that suicide bombing is a moral right, he means just that.
I can think of no better definition for the phrase 'epic fail' than - n. The Guardian.