Let me start with the last post. Power ans governance and its everyday problems will bring about moderation in the views of the Hamas leadership, if not the rank and file. Therefore Israel and the Quartet must negotiate in good faith.

Until this actually happens...there will be no talking! Israel must negotiate in good faith? Just how do you propose to negotiate with someone who has stated categorically that one of their objectives is to destroy your country totally! Like it's been said before....until Hamas changes it's tune, there will be no talks.

The prestige of Yasser Arafat was deeply dented when the Israeli government in wanton disregard to the canons of international law bombed the headquarters of Arafat and forced him to live the rest of his life in a hole ten feet under the ground. He was forbidden to travel and with the threat of Israeli state sponsored assassination hanging over his head, Yasser Arafat was essentially rendered irrelevant to the political sphere.

Arafat was under the threat of state sponsored assassination because he was a terrorist. He and his government both aided and abetted terrorists and terroristic acts. Specifically acts against Jews in general.

"Like it's been said before....until Hamas changes it's tune, there will be no talks."

The problem is, they HAVE changed their tune. They have backpedaled over and over, and even this week said they would consider disarming if demands were met.

At the same time, Khaled Mashaal, their exiled leader in the Sudan said:

"There will be no recognition of Israel and there will be no security for the occupation and colonization forces," Mashaal told a rally in Khartoum. "Resistance will remain our strategic option."

You can't negotiate with murderers and the insane that talk out of both sides of their mouths. You can't even put conditions like changing their tune on it, because they can't say what their tune will be tomorrow.

There will be no recognition of Israel and there will be no security for the occupation and colonization forces," Mashaal told a rally in Khartoum. "Resistance will remain our strategic option."

The logic of the situatiion will eventually lead to the two state solution and public statements made for the consumption of the rank and file will not deter Israel from opening a dialogue with, yes, even Hamas. Tell me there is no alternative. And Hamas is certainly more moderate than certain other groups. Hamas will certainly give up its militancy once it comes to power and gets on with the task of governance. The Bush supported attempt to starve the Palestenian Auhthority of funds will be countercproductive.

"Hamas will certainly give up its militancy once it comes to power and gets on with the task of governance. "

No, they'll just do what Arafat did and separate their military and political wing, and pretend that they aren't responsible for what the militants do. Better still, they'll have the coffers of the Palestinian Authority at their disposal to both spend on arms and launder all the ill-gotten money the receive. They'll claim peace, and the boatloads of arms will keep coming, bought with the money meant to feed Palestinians, just as Arafat did before them.

As for the Palestenians, in 1948 they were betrayed by their own Arab Governments and with the on set of the Cold War the problem became worse.

That is true. But did you ever see any primary source from before 1968 that spoke of "Palestinians" as (solely) the Arabs living in Palestine?

I think it is just atrocious that Palestenians are denied basic human rights that the rest of the world takes for granted. This includes the Palestenians in Israel.

Which basic human rights are they denied?

How do they compare to the inhabitants of other countries in the region and in the world, specifically with other occupied territories?

For example, how does Palestine compare to Western Sahara, human-rights-wise?

Do you differentiate between rights the Arab Palestinians cannot make use of because they are in a war against Israel (which they wanted) and between rights Israel took from them for fun? Did they have any rights when they were under Egyptian and Jordanian occupation that they don't have any more?

Should Israel recognize the supposed rights of a population that does not recognize Israel or the human rights of Jews?

Why?

And which rest of the world takes human rights for granted? The middle east? Arab countries? Jews are not even allowed in Saudi Arabia, and homosexuals are executed. Are these the human rights Arabs take for granted? Is that what Israel denies them?

If Israel treated Muslims like Saudi Arabia treats Jews, would that satisfy the demands that Israel respect the humen rights everybody else takes for granted?

In what ways does Israel have to change?

And what would be the benefit to Israel?

No, they'll just do what Arafat did and separate their military and political wing, and pretend that they aren't responsible for what the militants do

It is difficult for a state actor to claim deniability, but very easy form non state actors: this is the reason why Hamas must be incorporated into the styate structure. Put it cynically, you might say that it is safer to deal with Hamas as a legitimate political actor than ignoring it and driving it underground. I am reminded of a famous line from Nixon : it is better to have them iside the tent than outside.

That is true. But did you ever see any primary source from before 1968 that spoke of "Palestinians" as (solely) the Arabs living in Palestine?

Palestine and a nationality Palestinean is recognised by the Balfour Declaration of 1919. True Arabs were a part of the Ottoman Empire but after the end of the Ottoman Empire distinct territories were carved out keeping the interests of the Oil companies. Kuwait over which the First Gulf War was faught had no independent existenxce as a state before the emirate was created.

Palestine and a nationality Palestinean is recognised by the Balfour Declaration of 1919.

1917 Balfour Declaration:

Foreign Office November 2nd, 1917 Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet. "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country." I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation. Yours sincerely, Arthur James Balfour

It doesn't speak of a Palestinian nation, only of all sorts of people living in Palestine. The idea that a "Palestinian" is, specifically, a non-Jewish (and possibly non-Druze) inhabitant of Palestine came up very late. In fact I have never seen any pre-1968 or pre-1948 primary source that used the word "Palestinian" to describe an Arab living in Palestine.

Kuwait over which the First Gulf War was faught had no independent existenxce as a state before the emirate was created.

That is true for all countries in the world. None of them had an independent existence before they were created.

Kuwait, however, was established in the 18th century and was not a part of the Ottoman Empire (and hence not a part of Iraq).

(Btw, the first Gulf War that I remember was between Iraq and Iran. You mean the second Gulf War.)

The logic of the situation will eventually lead to the two state solution

There will be a two-state solution as soon as the Arabs accept a two-state solution.

They had all the time in the world to accept it. It was offered in 1948, between 1949 and 1968, and in 2000. They rejected it, rejected it, and rejected it.

There is no "peace process" requires to arrive at a two-state solution. Israel is fine with it. Israel has always been fine with it. The Arabs simply have to accept it.

Do you know the story about the woman and the 12 books of wisdom? She came to a city and offered to sell them the 12 books which she said contained all the wisdom in the world. The city refused.

She then burned 6 of the books and left with the rest.

The next year she came back and offered the city the remaining 6 books for more gold than she asked for for the 12 books. The city refused.

She burned 3 of the books and left with the rest.

Again she came back and offered to sell the remaining 3 books of wisdom, a quarter of all the wisdom in the world. The city refused and she burned 2 of the books, leaving with one.

And when she came back again the city paid her much more gold than she even demanded for the 3 books for thr remaining 1 book.

This is what the Arab Palestinians are doing. And they still think they can get all the books for free.

They could have had Gaza, the West Bank, East-Jerusalem, the old city, and much of the Negev plus much of the north, but they refused.

They could have had Gaza, the West Bank, and East-Jerusalem including the old city, but they refused.

They could have had Gaza and the West Bank, they refused.

Now they will get whatever Israel wants to give.

My guess is Gaza and the West Bank sans Jerusalem and without the area needed for the fence and several of the larger settlements.

But the Palestinian Arabs will never learn that they won't throw the Jews into the sea. And the Arab nationalist dream of a Jew-free middle east will not come to pass.



Israel is there to stay. But don't blame Israel for the Arabs' inability to accept that fact.

I seriously wonder you people have ever negotiated ANYTHING with anyone. Would you ever negotiate with a car dealer if his opening price for a Honda Civic was $150,000? You people don't actually negotiate, though. You assemble a coalition of freaks to DEMAND someone give you what you want.

I guess you could consider Hamas moderate next to Islamic Jihad. They don't even bother with social services or a "political wing". They're all suicide bombings, all the time.

That is true for all countries in the world. None of them had an independent existence before they were created.

Identities are never static and the angst ridden Palestenian identity was essentially forges in the crucible of Near Eastern politics.

Identities are never static and the angst ridden Palestenian identity was essentially forges in the crucible of Near Eastern politics.

So I take it you couldn't find any mention of specifically Arab "Palestinians" from before 1948 or 1968?

So I take it you couldn't find any mention of specifically Arab "Palestinians" from before 1948 or 1968?

I must check up on this fact. I do not have with me the Cambridge History of the Ottoman Empire which has recently been published. To my mind this would give me an authetic information without the heavy dross of polemic. The Islamic state of the Ottomans did not recognize nationalities only communities and therefore one even finds mention of phliistine even in early texts.

I must check up on this fact. I do not have with me the Cambridge History of the Ottoman Empire which has recently been published. To my mind this would give me an authetic information without the heavy dross of polemic. The Islamic state of the Ottomans did not recognize nationalities only communities and therefore one even finds mention of philistine even in early texts.

A British or Turkish source is fine with me.