There are two flavors of Israel stories going around major papers this morning. The first is about this tragic accident and about the Israeli offensive in Gaza. The second is about the Hamas government's call to eradicate the state of Israel. Which do you think the press has chosen to insert the word "genocide" into? Hint: it's not the AP story about the Hamas statement:

You know what's really infuriating about this statement? The small, nagging thing that really just eats at you?

It's not the obvious shameless of Hamas using "barbaric operations" as a standard for whether a state has the right to exist ("operations" in the context of killing civilians, no less!) Nor is it that right after that statement, the AP reporter calls him a moderate (OK, OK - it's not the AP reporter calling him a moderate... it's just the AP reporter writing that some other, nameless people consider him a moderate and that you should know that). Both of those are frustrating, but they're also kind of routine.

In this case, what's really just blood pressure-inducing is the way those two things combine in this specific context of civilian deaths.

Imagine what would happen if Israel responded a suicide attack claiming eighteen Israelis by declaring their intention to wipe out all the Palestinians. The din would be deafening. Every major and minor world leader would condemn the Jewish State. Every two-bit leftist would crow about the evils of the Zionist regime. Every journalist would hasten to provide ever-so-slightly-inaccurate descriptions of ostensible Israeli atrocities. There would literally be riots in the streets throughout the Arab and Muslim world, some stretching for weeks.

But when the official spokesman for the Palestinian government explicitly declares the Palestinian intention to commit mass genocide? Suffice to say that world leaders aren't exactly tripping over each other to grab microphones and condemn him. At best - at best - we'll hear some tsk tsks about how it's unfortunate but understandable after 18 Palestinians died. Nothing approaching this kind of generosity ever seems to get extended to Israel after Palestinian suicide bombings. Instead, even the most precise and targeted Israeli retaliation is met with howls of "disproportionate force" and "the day after". So we're pretty sure that Israel would be under a virtual boycott right now if it was gearing up for attacks (like the Palestinians are doing) and promising to make the other side "cease to exist" (like the Palestinians are doing).

Israelis targeting terrorists - disproportionate force. Muslim leaders calling for the destruction of Israel - just something that happens every couple of days. Honestly, you can't expect world leaders to address every single Arab or Muslims call for the elimination of the "Jewish cancer," can you? Nobody has the kind of time or energy.

Ahmadinejad has succeeded: calls for Jewish genocide have become a normal part of public discourse in the Arab world, in international diplomatic circles, and in the global media. It's on the spectrum of things people suggest. "Moderates" are Palestinians who suggest that Jews should be allowed to live in the territory that's Israel, but that it should be flooded with refugees and lose its Jewish majority (because of all the groups in the world, only Jews apparently have no rights to self-determination). "Extremists" are people who believe the same thing, except without the Jews being allowed to live part.

At least that's how it used to be. Now according to the AP you can call for genocide against Jews and still be a "moderate". Makes you wonder what one would have to do to earn an "extremist" label from the Associated Press? Probably live in a red state and ask for a Christmas display on public land or something.

Previously: Slate Seems a Little Confused about the Israeli-EU Relationship, Looks Like Sometimes It's OK To Kill Terrorist Leaders, If You're Not Israel, VDH On International Diplomacy and Israel