The sad thing is that Yassin came closer to condemning the Istanbul bombings than most of the European left.

Wow, he even SOUNDS like Saruman! Him and his Palestinian Uruk-Hai...

Edelstein's point is a good one and profoundly and pathetically sad one, but correct.

Even stating that the PLO is neither willing nor able to confront Sheik Yassin is a red herring and obscures, in my opinion, the real reality there. The PLO and Yassin are birds of the same feather. They're not even as removed from one another as the 'diplomatic' and 'political' fronts of the IRA, who advised Arafat as well as the Soviets who trained him and Vietnamese.

The point is the PLO wants to utilize Hamas and only wants to diminish them to the point where they threaten their power. I've heard so many times that the PLO was actually fighting Hamas in the 90's and that they stopped doing it when they """ saw that it wasn't to their benefit because Israel left ""no hope"" of any future for them."""

Perhaps, the real main cruxt of the reasons were as follows -

1) Hamas had gained immensely in popularity due to the incredible corruption of the PLO which is just now coming to the fore and it became a much riskier and costly proposition to violently confront them.

2) In the beginning the PLO had nothing in the territories, they were foreigners from Tunisia who knew no locals and had no real strong contacts or control on the ground. They needed to break the present structure and make it subservient and dependent on them, which meant taking control of everything, which also meant controlling and jailing Hamas as well as other members for both Israel's and their benefit.

3) After Arafat saw that he had control he more aggressively began to pursue what he always envisioned, an armed struggle, which meant including Hamas as a valuble weapon and utilizing them while still maintaining a front to the Israelis and the West of his goals of the (clear your throat) """" Peace of the Brave """"

4) At this point Hamas according Shin Bet could still be crushed by the PA with far larger police force, money and weapons, however it could still incite a Civil War and be very costly politically and financially to the PA, which Arafat will not do and would likely try and avoid even if it meant a small challenge to his money supply. Instead, he would take the Saudi approach of jailing and/or killing low level players in the way while utilizing bribery and backroom deals with the major players, Yassin, Rantisi, etc...

Make no mistake about it though certainly Arafat and Hamas are practically one in the same. The question is how removed are Queria, Nussbeih, Rabbo and Abbas? In my opinion it really doesn't matter anyway, how removed they are or could be, or if whether a deal was worked out if momentum would then force the PA to conform to what the world then expected or not?That is why Arafat and the PA will never sign a final END OF CONFLICT resolution and want something that gives them a state first without major commitments, and just promises to work other issues out later.

Its posed to people now as the only option since the issues are so deep and complex that holding everything up on them is just perpetuating violence and killing any hope of taking "the next step" towards eventual 'resolution'. Pefectly fitting into the PA strategy.

In the end that's the end game of all of the above players as well. The only difference is how far they are willing to "play ball" with the EU and make what would "compatively at least" appear as "generous" moves towards peace. Half condemning suicide bombings, giving up the Right of Return, etc... They realize the way to crush Israel is to get the above and the only way to get it, is to withdraw from the violent approach for now. Unfortunately for them the culture of violence and desperation, and brainwashing is a train on the tracks that they cant' control now even for their own benefit. (I know there's a fable somewhere with a lesson that fits this scenario)

Mike

Maybe your pops can help me out with one? I'm not a mythology or biblical scholar.

This sheikh seems to be less of a sniveling weasel than arafat and his cronies. if he is in fact a straightalker, perhaps Israel should consider opening negotiations with him instead, irrespective of his present lack of enthusiasm for zionism.

"Without an Israeli withdrawal there can be no discussion of a cessation in the struggle."

Translation: If Israel capitulates to our demands, we won't stop wantonly cutting down Jewish school children, but we'd be willing to talk about it.

Translation: Cave in and we MIGHT quit slaughtering civilians in cold blood, but only after more of our demands have been met. Only then can we begin to "negotiate" an end to the "struggle."

Anybody who doesn't see through this is just a damned fool, and a dangerous one. There are lots of those around, alas. Meanwhile, only the Israelis are willing to grasp the obvious.

P.S.: That goes for you too, markus rose.

I'm not recommending Israel agree to anything it would not otherwise give up. Rather, I'm suggesting calling his bluff on the tough talk by inviting him to negotiations. Why the insistence on only negotiating with those who mouth the right words accepting Israel's existence? A disengagement between Hamas and Sharon seems likely to be more durable than a peace negotiated by Israeli doves and a Palestinian shyster like Arafat.

negotiate? no. just kill the bastards. The only negotiation point Israel should offer is either death or unconditional surrender. Take a page from US military history, the firebombing of Japan. Start by destroying Jenin, that should concentrate the "palestinian" mind.

The Israelis have dug themselves into a hole by allowing the PLO to gain the upper hand, winning international popular support for their cause. Never before has a State made such mess of the situation.
Arafat walked away from the peace table, started the intifada and amazingly convinced the world they only were responding to Israeli aggression.
The solution is quite simple.
Tell Arafat that he has 6 days to agree to permanent peace talks or Israel will see his non compliance as a declaration of war on Israel. In return Israel will immediately start to pull down the wall and agree to include Jerusalem in negotiations.
On the next day, begin to close down 1 or 2 of the more contentious settlements and inform Syria that any aggression from Hizbollah in Lebanon will result in the bombing of Damascus.
Next day declare that they (Israel) will take over the running of the day to day work of the Red Cross in the West Bank (they are now pulling out anyway) and that Israel will hand out to Palestinian charities, over a period of one year, an amount equivalent to the cash stolen by Arafat. This will commence on the day negotiations start.
On the 4th day, appoint an attractive, English speaking female, black Army Major as International Media Liason Officer and an Etheopean/Israeli government press officer.
On the 5th day announce that 'the right of return' will be on the table.
on day 6, wait for the Arafat no-show. Kill him
On day 7. Rest.

There were two things that struck me about the interview.
1) Yassin was at pains to sound moderate. He was almost believable that all he wants is a Palestinian state alongside Israel. (He didn't say this but somebody who knew no better would not see otherwise). This is dangerous as he was not pushed enough to make this clear - a fault of the interviewer
2) Yassin does not follow the news. He is so into his own affairs, and into the Koran that he misses major news stories such as Istanbul. This is EXTREMELY worrying as it confirms that leaders of the Palestinians are not of this world. All they are interested in is the world to come (and the 60 virgins?). You can't negotiate with such people as they are living on a different planet.

This does not mean that Israel should not negotiate, or that there should not be a two-state solution. The problem is not this, but how to achieve this when the other side are not willing ot settle because their world view is so limited and inaccurate. So, Israel first needs to find somebody who does know what is going on in the world. (Yes - I do believe in a two-state solution. It is either that, genocide by killing all the Palestinians in Judea/Samaria or the ethnic cleansing euphemism, or giving up a Jewish state in 30 years time when the Palestinians outnumber Israeli Jews).

There are already two Palestinian States!!!!
East Palestine (now called Jordan) and West Palestine (now called Israel). Trying to wedge a third state between them would be like pulling the pin from a grenade and then holding it between your knees. Imagine what will happen when you become too tired to keep squeezing.

As an American historian (30 years at Notre Dame), the Settlements remind me of the movement in 1847-1848 to annex ALL of Mexico after our victory in the Mexican War (like Israel's victory in 1967). We didn't do that. If we had, we would now have 120 million Mexicans and the kind of permanent unrest that Israel has suffered since the Six Day War. There's a biological time-bomb ticking. One day there will be a MAJORITY of Muslims between the Jordan and the Mediterranean. How can Israel remain a Jewish State AND a democracy, with an Arab majority?

Samuel -- you ask a damn good question.

Aaron -- If your opposition to a third state is based on your preference for returning the West Bank to Jordanian sovereignty -- then you are defending a sensible idea whose time has unfortunately passed, I am afraid.

But if, as I suspect, your opposition to a third state grows out of support for tranfer or for perpetual Jewish rule over disenfranchised West Bank Arabs, then...you are just defending the indefensible.

In 1947, twenty five years after the establishment of Transjordan, or "East Palestine," there were a million plus Arabs who happened to live in "West Palestine" as you call it -- too many to be accomadated in a Jewish majority state. That's why the 1947 partition plan proposed to give so much land for that third state that you are so opposed to. If we can all agree that the fundamental problem is Arab rejection or equivocation on the acceptance of a Jewish state in ANY of historic Palestine, please tell me how the ethnic cleansing of Arabs from "West Palestine" in 2003 or 2013 would hasten that acceptance anymore than the ethnic cleansing of Israeli Arabs (those promised Israeli citizenship under the partition plan) that occured in the 1948 War of Independence did?

Or do you see the problem as not Israel's lack of acceptance by her neighbors, but rather simply the presence of too many non-Jews in Israeli territory?

I see good commentary here, and only wish I had a final solution for Israel's "thorn in the side". What about finish the fence, fortify it heavily, give them a state so that Israel will not be worried about an Arab majority in years to come, and stipulate that if so many as one foreign military advisor ever crosses the Jordan that it will be considered an act of war against the Nation of Israel?

I also agree with the fellow who suggested bombing Damascus if Hizbullah cannot keep its business at home. Still don't know why the IAF didn't take out half the Bekaa on its last little sorties. Perhaps they'll stick their nose out and Sharon will chop their head off.