Sometimes I can't help thinking the media is biased: From a Washington Post article on Sharon and Arafat:

It was the second rebuke to Sharon by his party in four months. In May, Likud members overwhelmingly rejected his so-called disengagement plan for Gaza...

When you say "so called X," you mean to say that while it is being referred to as X, its really not X. That is, a "so-called disengagement plan" is something that is billed as a disengagement plan but is really not. After all, reporters usually don't refer to the "so-called state of the union address." Which raises the question: in what sense is Sharon's plan anything other than a disengagement plan? Given that it calls for withdrawing Israeli settlers from Gaza, how is the label "disengagement" inappropriate?

More surprising was this passage:

...Palestinian's intifada approaches its fifth anniversary and shows no sign of abating. More than 2,700 Palestinians and about 980 Israelis have been killed in the conflict.

In fact, the number of terrorist bombings has dramatically decreased - by 75% in the last year and even more since the peak of the intifada in March 2001.

Perhaps I am nitpicking on the "so-called" but the Post is factually wrong in claiming that the intifada has not abated.