About 10% of Israelis for Labor, a center-left praty that wants a Palestinian state. About 23% of Israelis voted for Kadima, a center party that wants a Palestinian state. Another 22% voted for Likud, a center-right party led by a guy who wants a unity government with Labor and Kadima. The Washington Post's conclusion? Israel has politically regressed to intransigence and radicalism. Obviously:

Israel's election last week propelled the country back in time to a political era when the parliament was sharply divided between parties that favored or opposed a two-state settlement with Palestinians. As in the 1980s, the right has the upper hand: Likud party leader Binyamin Netanyahu appears to have the best chance to become prime minister, even though his party finished second behind the centrist Kadima. Americans who remember Mr. Netanyahu's last stint as prime minister in the 1990s -- and there are several in the Obama administration who were working on Mideast policy then -- have to be concerned that he would repeat his strategy of seeking to delay or undermine all peace negotiations with the Palestinians. He might also press for Israeli or American military action against Iran, and he has promised to "topple" and "uproot" Hamas from the Gaza Strip.

This is a neat trick. If you're a democratically elected Israeli Prime Minister, the Washington Post publicly worries about your "strategy of seeking to delay or undermine all peace negotiations." If you're a democratically elected Hamas Prime Minister, the Washington Post lets you publish propaganda in their newspaper. Balance!

I'm not saying that Washington Post reporters abandoned all pretense of professionalism and cheered for Obama because they're the kind of people who reflexively blame Israel for Palestinian intransigence. But I would be willing to defend that they abandoned all pretense of professionalism and cheered for Obama and they're the kind of people who reflexively blame Israel for Palestinian intransigence.

Not that it matters, but I'm still waiting for all those "Hamas rocket fire radicalizes Israelis" headlines from major media outlets. This shouldn't be too hard. Just take every article ever written about how Israeli self-defense maneuvers radicalize the gentle little lambs in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, reverse the names, and publish. What's the holdup?

References:
* Israel's Step Backward [Washington Post]
* Uhh... When Did the Washington Post Start Letting Terrorists Publish Propaganda?
* Surprise: Crowd cheers for Obama at Washington Post building; Flashback: WaPo reporter noted cheering in 2005 [Hot Air]

Previously:
* Obligatory Post About WaPo's "Israel Should Lift Its Gaza Blockade" Editorial
* Sophisticated Washington Post Debunking Of Terrorism Lacks Something In The Way Of Not Being Smugly Banal
* Top 10 Stupid Media Tricks From Week 1 Of Operation Cast Lead