Read again. Slowly slowly. "He [Henry Siegman] says that Arafat made a 'disastrous mistake' in rejecting the peace offer, BUT [also] CLAIMS that 'based on my 14 years of dealings with Arafat, I reject the notion that he was bent on Israel's destruction.' " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Siegman This is what Siegman said: Arafat's rejection of the peace offer was indeed a disastrous mistake. From this, however, one should NOT conclude that Arafat was bent on Israel's destruction. It was, so Siegman implies, rather a miscalculation, basing this claim on his 14 years old dealings with Arafat. No one is forcing you to believe him, but THIS is what he said. I suggest you find a way to improve your reading comprehention skills. And that you stop selecting from a quote only what fits your (deluded) stance. "Sharon was ONE PM. Trying to generalise using him is dishonest." (peter sm) "Siegman is sharply critical of Ariel Sharon". Read again: Of Ariel Sharon. Of nobody else. In the quote at least. Siegman does not "generalise". Arafat was ONE Chairman. Trying to generalise using him IS dishonest. See how dishonest it is: "Yesterday, in my speech to the United Nations, I said that you're a man of peace who believes in a two-state solution. And after our conversation today, you once again confirmed that." Pres. Bush to Chairman Abbas, Sep 20, 2006. www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/bush092006.html
5 wounded Syrians rushed to northern Israeli hospital (Haaretz)
from the article: Why do Israelis dislike Barack Obama?