You remember the Bush Doctrine? The one that said that no action by any state could ever justify violence against civilians? The one about how there's an absolute distinction between terrorism and its victims? Yeah, no:

Such distinctions may give cause for a giggle, but the declaration contains two elements that will serve the Israeli right wing in attacks it is expected to make on the prime minister. The first is the comparison the declaration makes between "terrorism and incitement, whether committed by Palestinians or Israelis." Translation: Olmert agreed that Israel too is responsible for terrorism and incitement against the Palestinians, and that America will decide in every case who is inciting and who is a terrorist. No public relations spin will be able to erase that: The comments Ariel Sharon's government presented for the road map specifically rejected the requirement that Israel "cease the violence and the incitement against the Palestinians." Now Israel has given up on its opposition and a moral comparison has been established, which leaves Olmert with a lot of explaining to do.

Bush's legacy could have been that he stood firmly by the moral framework needed to fight the war of our time. Instead he'll be simply another in a long line of Presidents who abandoned his principles in a failed attempt to solve the Middle East conflict by weakening Israel and giving land and money to its enemies. That's some mighty good company right there.

References:
* Who's in favor of ending (Israeli) terrorism? [Ha'aretz]
* Jimmy Carter: Hamas Made Up of "So-Called Terrorists" [MR]

Previously:
* Things That Piss Us Off About This Morning's Guardian Article (5) - The Total Lack of Any Thought About Anything. Ever. They Don't Even Know The Consequences of Their Own Stupid Moral Equivalence.
* Munich is Cheap Propaganda
* Los Angeles Times Moral Equivalence at Work