Washington Post editorialist seeks to generate sympathy for the Palestinians by admitting everything we Hasbaristas have been saying all along

This is close to the weirdest thing I've ever read. Here are some examples:

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is the head of a stable state with the ability to deliver on his commitments. Celebrations of supposed institution-building notwithstanding, Palestinians have no robust central authority. Their territory is divided between the West Bank and Gaza. On their own, Palestinians would find it difficult to implement an agreement, however much they might wish to. Israel controls all material assets; Palestinians at best can offer intangible declarations and promises. [...]

What happens should negotiations fail? The status quo, though sub-optimal, presents no imminent danger to Israel. What Israelis want from an agreement is something they have learned either to live without (Palestinian recognition) or to provide for themselves (security). The demographic threat many invoke as a reason to act -- the possibility that Arabs soon might outnumber Jews, forcing Israel to choose between remaining Jewish or democratic -- is exaggerated. Israel already has separated itself from Gaza. In the future, it could unilaterally relinquish areas of the West Bank, further diminishing prospects of an eventual Arab majority. Because Israelis have a suitable alternative, they lack a sense of urgency. The Palestinians, by contrast, have limited options and desperately need an agreement.

He should have written "they desperately need the agreement that will result in the denunciation as a traitor, collaborator, and lackey of any negotiator who achieves it," but the man has no sense at all of the tidal wave of irony he has unleashed. Read the rest and don't put anything you don't want crushed under your jaw.