The New York Times' Arafat Problem

In an otherwise reasonable editorial regarding the need for Arafat to retire, the New York Times makes some appalling statements. The first is in the opening paragraph:

It's been the misfortune of the Palestinian people to be stuck with Yasir Arafat as their founding father, a leader who has failed to make the transition from romantic revolutionary to statesman.

Romantic revolutionary??????? This is how the Times refers to one of the world's arch-terrorists?? To the man who single-handedly made airplane hijackings a way of life??? To the man who has sent hundreds of terrorists to kill Israeli children??? To the man who is on tape (NSA recordings) ordering the murder of US diplomats in Khartoum??? How can anyone trust the Times after lines like this?

Next, the Times draws an equivalence between Arafat and Sharon.

The retirement of Mr. Arafat, who is 74, would allow the creation of a more credible Palestinian government that could garner international support and claim the moral high ground in the confrontation with Mr. Arafat's equally stubborn nemesis, Ariel Sharon.

And finally, the Times repeats the inane line regarding Arafat's legitimacy as leader:

Saying that it's time for Mr. Arafat to go is not the same as saying it is time for Mr. Arafat to be removed by force. He is, after all, a democratically elected leader, though the term he won in 1996 was never meant to be this long.

Apparently "one man, one vote, one time" is a good enough democracy for the Times, not even to mention the actual undemocratic nature of that "election". I guess for the Times, Saddam was also democratically elected. Paraphrasing Dennis Ross, Arafat's "election" was slightly more legitimate than Stalin's, and less legitimate than Hitler's.