The closest I've been able to come is the understanding that, due to the evil quality of the source of this particular threat, it is more repugnant and more visceral, therefore perceived to be greater than a comparable risk without the emotional component.
No, kholt. 'Our cohort' as you call it, is reading different news sources and reaching different conclusions based on different data.
Take, for example, reports on the Palestinians since their election. The New York Times reports that Hamas, while sticking to their rhetoric, is dropping hints of moderation and seeking to form a unity government. Furthermore, there haven't been many suicide bombs going off lately, and Hamas ran on a platform of clean government. So the New York Times holds out hope that governing may moderate Hamas.
If you read the Jerusalem Post, you get all the above information, plus some additional information - the Shin Bet (Israeli Security) reports that 12 attempted suicide bombing have been stopped in the last week. The New York Times didn't mention that. It never does mention failed attempts.
Personally, I conclude the added fact should lessen hope of any sudden PA moderation, but hey, maybe that's just me. Draw your own conclusions. |
