Real changes in the Palestinian Authority?

Charles Krauthammer has an excellent column in today's WaPo highlighting the obstacles to making peace with a Palestinian Authority that is far from clear about whether it wants lasting peace or just a temporary "cease-fire".

On May 23, just a week ago, the official newspaper of the supposedly reformed Palestinian Authority carried a front-page picture of the latest suicide bomber dressed in suicide-bomber regalia. It then referred to the place where she did her murdering as "occupied Afula." The town of Afula is in Israel's Galilee. It is not occupied. It is not in the West Bank or Gaza. It is within Israel. If Afula is occupied, then Tel Aviv is occupied, Haifa is occupied and Israel's very existence is a crime.

This bit of incitement and delegitimization was, to my knowledge, reported in not a single American newspaper. It is simply too routine. It is the everyday stuff of Palestinian newspapers and television, schoolbooks and sermons. Appearing, however, after the Palestinians had presumably adopted new leadership committed to (1) ending terrorism and (2) accepting Israel, this outrage caught the eye of Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Satloff brought it to American attention noting that "it is difficult to imagine a more chilling message to Israelis who doubt Palestinian commitment to a two-state solution."

Go read the whole thing.   It is thoughtful, and a helpful reminder that peace cannot be achieved unless both sides to the dispute want it.   At best, the jury is still out on the Palestinians' desire to leave to co-exist with even an Israel with 1967 borders.   At worst, well, we've seen this script before...