Quartet: Palestinian gov't must abide by our terms

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/collaborator 1st definition is "To work, one with another; cooperate, as on a literary work." There will never be peace until the two sides collaborate on it. 2nd: "to cooperate, usually willingly, with an enemy nation." Now, JB always denies that the Pals declared war upon Israel or that there's a State of war. However, we are an enemy nation for just those reasons. He also ignores how Arafat walked away from a major offer, gave no counter offer, and his successors now demand Israel withdraw to the GL on the promise of potential peace, while JB claims it's Israel demanding a blank check. He continues to lie because it is the only chance of his keeping both his feelings of righteousness and antisemitism.

Israel has: - Helped with training of the PA security forces - Withdrawn from settlements both on the WB and in Gaza - Facilitated elections - Improved "humanitarian situation" when possible - Continued revenue and tax transfers All Phase I components. What has the PA done? Nothing. They haven't even accomplished any of the purely internal reforms such as those for the security forces or financial transparency. Yet, as usual, Paulo demands Israel must do everything before the PA does anything. His typical antisemitic rant.

(1)spy satelites are a poor defence against militry bomardment. (2)You question reagan's expertise in this area, this concurs with what us miltary experts have to say about it. http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1056191/posts In October 1988, 100 senior U.S. generals and admirals issued a public call for Israel to "retain the Jordan River line as [her] eastern security border" noting that: "...I Virtually all the population would be subject to artillery bombardment. The plain north of Tel Aviv could be riven by an armored salient within hours. The quick mobilization of its civilian army -- Israel's main hope for survival -- would be disrupted easily, and perhaps irreversibly." In 1991, Lieutenant General Thomas Kelly, the highly respected chief of Operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during Desert Storm, said, "Israel's control over these areas is the only guarantee, however imperfect, of peace. Their loss is a prescription for war." He added that: d

Your comment is right on the mark! It is not clear to me why after so many years, since 1937 of missing opportunities, they do not realize what they do.

Dino, Allow me solve your puzzle. Differently to you I am in favour of Israel's existence in Peace. The fact that Abu Mazzen has resigned himself to be a tool of an organization whose main purpose is to destroy Israel, which is so fanatic that puts hatred above the well being of its people will not help bring peace and stability to the region. The Mecca agreement is one to unite against Israel, bring money into the PA to pay for arms to attack Israel. This means going on with the undercurrent war that is going on and which you seem to deny. In war one fights to win, an for sutvival, if it is war that the Palestinians want, let them have it. If it is peace, I am totally in favor.

"PLO did not formally and legally represent Palestinian people" - And who is anybody else to decide this but the Palestinians! It is the decision of the Palestinians to represent them, be it the PLO of the eighties or the Hamas of today. You are in no position to dictate to these people who they cannot authorise to advocate their cause. "How would UK be dealing with IRA if they would not be honouring old deals?" - Same question also applies, how would the IRA be regarding these deals if the UK failed to acknowledge their own conditions under signed agreements.

Im all for the Palestinians maintaining the conditions of the Quartet if these very same conditions are also honoured by Israel. Now if Israel refuses to acknowledge them then why should we hold the Palestinians, a population of refugees living under an illegal military occupation, to this standard. If its good enough for the Palestinians its good enough for Israel.

It wants the Palestinian leadership to be good little collaborators, Edith. It wants to go into negotiations where the Pals pick up a blank notebook and a pencil, and looks up at the Israeli negotiators and says "well, Boss, what is it you want us to give you? Coz then we can work out how much you are willing to throw back to us". It wants to pick an choose, and it wants the other side to acknowledge that Israel has the right to pick and choose. And if it doesn't get that acknowledgement before it walks into the room, well, it simply refuses to walk into the room. Israeli Standard Operating Procedure. Has been for decades. They very nearly got what they wanted in 1993, until the nitwit who believed all the right-wing propaganda blew Rabin away. Not nuanced enough to understand what Rabin was trying to achieve, I guess. But Israel can still smell that near-miss of 1993 and want to keep trying, even tho the Pals are no longer nibbling the bait.

You know, Alberto, sometimes it just takes a little bit of patience, to get the results you wish for. Remember, it took the PLO a long, long time to accept the existence of Israel. And although Hamas has still a long way to go, don't you think they already have "moderated" quite a bit...?? During the so called "war of the busses" just 4 years ago, it would have been unthinkable that a Hamas-leader (Meshal, even from the extreme wing) would in an interview suggest that the Palestinians could live with the acceptance of an Israeli state. And with regard to the IRA and England, it took also a long time (with a lot of setbacks), till they got where they are today. Remember, just 2 years ago, some IRA splinter groups still refused to give up their weapons...

Lynn, you are right, people in Darfour may be even worse off than Palestinians, but believe me, there are mot many millionaires living in the occupied territories.... That was probably the understatement of the year...

Well, Duncan, I assume that speach was made about 25 years ago, when the military technology (including spy satellites etc.) was a little bit behind todays standard. To be honest, I don't think that the security question would still be the main reason for Israel insisting to keep the settlements. (Apart from the fact that it is clear to almost everybody that Israel might keep some strategic points along the 67 borders anyway). And by the way, Reagan did a good job with regard to the cold war, but I don't think he was really a specialist in Middle Eastern affairs...

1) The Muslim Brotherhood, of which Hamas is a member, declared global jihad its cause in 1928 2) The Arab League declared war against Israel's existence in '48 3) Fatah did so in '58 4) The PLO did so in '65 I'm curious as to what sense of the flow of time you have if you blame that on Israel's actions in '67. The unfairness is that Israel has had to defend itself for 60 years. Their war has killed our people, kept our military budget high, damaged the rest of our economy, and caused constant troubles. Yet somehow it's "unfair" that we demand they end the war and negotiate a fair and equitable peace. Was Belgium unfair to Germany when people resisted? Oh, wait, very few people resisted. Maybe you want us to roll over and surrender as did you? You have a very warped view of the world.

Most Israeli politicos and analysts were saying in 2002 that the real threat was not Iraq but Iran. Iraq was bottled up, a potential problem but one being handled. Iran was an open threat actively pursuing terror on one side and nuclear weapons on the other. We also felt the attack was bad for another reason, which is why every man, woman and child was issued a gas mask. Not only is there no evidence for Hew's contention, the evidence clearly denies it.

The Quartet fails to be an honest broker and by accepting its terms the Palestinian people would be accepting Israel's double standards and its continued injustices against the Palestinian people. Recognizing Israel's right to exist would be a gross double standard as Israel has failed to recognize a sovereign Pale- stinian State and honor its peoples 'Right of Return. Abiding by past agreements is too one-sided as it would be accepting Israel's blatant violations of the Roadmap and the Oslo Accord with forbids settlement expansion in the territories. Israel has been in violation of this since 1967 and once again Peace Now reports Israel is building 3000 more illegal settle- ments in the WB making a viable Palestinian State impossible. Renouncing violence doesn't begin to address the root cause of Palestinian violence which is Israel's own violence and assassination policy, destruction of Palestinian property, and confiscation of Palestinian land. Thus it would be unthinkable to ask the Palestinians to re- nounce violence without asking Israel to do the same. Hence I say to the Palestinian people the Quartet is no honest broker either. It prolongs Israel's injustices towards the Pale- stinian people. Dutch

(which means no recognition of a UN member state right to exist), no acceptance of signed agreements betweet Israel and the Palestinians, and no end to terror and violence = no Palestinian state or even proper autonomous life for the Palestinians of the territories!!! They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity, and this one is yet, one more opportunity that they miss by insisting that Israel has no right to exist, that signed agreements are worthless, and that terror and murder of Jews will continue!!!

The Americans and Israel seem obsessed with the idea that Hamas must recgnize Israel prior to sbstantive peace negotiations. Why? Probably to ensure that real negotiations do not take place. Obviously, a peace agreement ever to be reached the Palestinians (regardless of the leadership) will need to fully recognize Israel as a Jewish State. Indeed, they will need to do mre than that. But, recognition would normally come after successful negotiations. If they agree now to all Israel's terms what is there to negotiate?

I just reread the article. You're right!

"There isn't a Palestinian Unity Government to support at the moment." Says Condaleeza Rice. A typical smart**se statement, from one who helped cause the mayhem, and disunity for the Palestinian people!

(Don't worry, my first rule not insults !!!!) Dino, I had choosen ETA for a specific reason. They are not honoring their deal with Spain goverment. In the other hand IRA is fullfilling all accords !!! Present situation faced by Israel was predicted many years ago. Before Oslo agreement great part of Israel society did not agree to maintain contact with PLO pointing out - besides Israel destrucion clause - that PLO did not formally and legaly represent Palestinian people. Therefore all efforts to reach a fair deal would be a total waste of time due to the fact that others groups would not hounour the deal. As stated before Hamas wants to make gain from a Democtratic elections but they are simply not ready to carry out with its obligations ! P.S. A simply question: How would UK be dealing with IRA if they would not be honoring old deals ?

The Jewish people's rights to the Land of Israel are rooted in 3500 years of history. Islam is a derivative religion, and your mosques are built on the sacred Jewish Temple Mount. Only a fool thinks otherwise.

I certainly hope you are right.

I'm afraid it is not going to work. As long as there is too much unfairness towards the Palestinians it is not going to work I'm afraid.

These days it began the trial of the muslim murderers of 192 commuters going to their schools and workplaces in Madrid 3 years ago. The judges are going to STUNT their impunity by serving them justice. Maybe if you invested more time in learning English, you could have a chance of extracting your brain from the blood thirsty delirium so fashionable among your “brothers” these days. Pathetic lovers of murder and murderers.

I'd rather the US spend more on Darfur and people in real need then give one more dime to the Palis.

As long as we don't have to give them any taxpayer money or support the Government. US isn't obligated to pay off terrorists.

refering to 4000 mens called Al Badr brigades stationed in Jordan, they could help fight against Iraq terror, or Taliban terror in Afganistan,instead of just seating doing nothing in Jordan but posing for cameras, who knows if they do a nice cleaning job , they may get a piece of Iraq or Afganistan as a pal state , may be next to Iran or Kuwait or Saudia or Syria or Jordan , their arabs brothers would surely accept them with open arms , rice ,flowers and blessing$, wouldn't it be best for Abbas to do so , instead of looking as a sales man touring EU and begging for some recognition , Arabs States recognize this pal unity gov't , don't they , would they prefer to see more pal blood for a lost Al Aqsa or smuggling in Gaza or would they prefer to be concerned with pals welfare , happy and safe in Iraq or Afganistan

The description given of Haiti in your post might be accurate given the turn for the worse the country took after the last American invasion of the country. An even bleaker assessment can be given Of today's Iraq also after the American invasion To compare the present post occupation state of Haiti and Iraq with an Independent Palestinian state on the west bank and Gaza free of foreign occupation is simply malicious vindictive hateful wishful thinking. The Palestinian state will come to pass. The world wishes for it to happen and will see to it that it will happen. This Palestinian state will be the success the Palestinians deserve and are worthy and are highly capable of acheiving. Try a light snack of peace, love, hope and compassion before going to sleep Hate is unhealthily filling and is the cause of your hallucinatory nightmares

You seem to enjoy the war in Iraq. What you don't realize is that a war is not a computer game. Calling the "bad guys" civilians has been over-used and no one buys it. You don't realize that wars are going to get only worth with new weapons and more death. It's not the Queen, it's not the Mulas it's the simple man on the street who thinks that it is fun, who loves to go to funerals and shoot missles. Get some education - get a life and then, only then you will be able to learn what a real joy is. And remember the first clue: It isn't a war!

Alberto, good to see that the Rio community is getting stronger and stronger here almost everyday here on Talkback. I already had the "pleasure" to chat with your compatriot vladimir once in a while (his favourite word for me is "idiot", by the way...). ._. Anyway, actually I have chosen the IRA, because they were like Hamas also a strongly religious influenced "terror" group, the Catholics in Northern Ireland would see them of course as freedom fighters, the same way as some Palesti- nians do see Hamas. But you are right, one could also make a comparison with the ETA, although they are not influenced by religion, the Basks are fighting like the Palestinians for their own state. As you might have realized, I am a strong advocate for non-violent resis- tance, so there is no love lost with me for a group like Hamas. But I also think, they will need some time for a change (if ever), and talking is generally never a bad thing.

"I remember that Olmert was calling Blair a "great friend of Israel", so there should be really no reason for Israelis to mistrust him now. " Good question. Perhaps Olmert is thinking of what an even greater friend of Israel President Reagan had to say about a retreat to the '67 borders would mean. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/presquote.html Ronald Reagan .. Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind secure and defensible borders; and it has a right to demand of its neighbors that they recognize those facts. I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.2 2 Address to the Nation on United States Policy for Peace in the Middle East,

It will not take a long time, and the Europeans will water down the 3 conditions formulated by the Quartet. Secret negotiations with the Hamas terrorists were held in Europe last year and ever since. The Europeans will declare that a truce proclaimed by the proxy of Iran will be sufficient. At the same time when the US is trying to form a coalition against the masters of Hamas, the mullahs in Tehran and the little helper in Damascus, hypocritical EU-countries are stabbing US efforts in the back by secret negotiations and secret trade with the rogue regimes. Germany increased its trade with the dictatorship in Damascus after the murder of Hariri by more than 40%. Secret cooperation with the nuclear programme of Iran and shipments even for the Iranian military by Germany was going on for years now. This stabbing in the back of US policies by the EU is one of the main reasons why Iran and the proxy Hamas do feel to be so strong.

i think that the relation between the palestinian goverment or authority, and the west countries, the situation was different when hamas was out of the power , but in this time specialy after the last election in the palestinian community , and the comming of hamas to the power ,that's requesting a move from the israel goverment iside israel to change the old politic with the palestinian authority special Mahmoud Abass and Fateh organisation and i think that there is no hope els the united states and the others countreis helping fateh and Abass to be a a strong power against hamas even we know that hamas makes some strategian relations with iran and syria . thanks khalil taifour

The Earl of Chatham (Pitt the elder) never embarked on unilateral military foreign adventures ,further more he was not a contemporary of nineteenth century British Politics . His son was. (Pitt the younger) however avoided war with France as much as he could, until it was forced upon him in 1793 by France's attack upon Holland,. You do of course know the sad circumstances of his death. Perhaps the example you are looking for is that of Lord Palmerston , he did as Foreign and later British prime minister follow a somewhat assertive foreign policy , but only when circumstances allowed. Lord Palmerston famously described British foreign policy in these words, (Britain has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.) A description still valid today. When Alfred Tennyson wrote Their's not to reason why, Their's but to do and die: He was refering to an ill prepared and ill excuted battle during the Crimean War. Of the six hundred and seventy three British cvavalry men,ordered to capture the Russian gun redoubts at Balaclava. only a hundred and ninety five survived unwounded. This poem might haunt Tony Blair as he contemplates his Iraq withdrawl policy

Like the palestinians... you missed an opportunity to say.... nothing.

A sovereign and viable palestine state is a fabricated sunni-shiite conspired machination to be solved between muslims states ,at the expense of Islamic death idolatres lands ,they praise endoctrined suicide islamists bombers , any state supporting this islam conspiracy is a terror state , jews have been persecuted for 2000 years , Israel refuse to be persecuted as a state , Israel cannot compromise the survival of its state , Israel cannot satisfy islamic death idolatres ,pirates , mercenaries sponsored and supported by their senders, any Israel gov't , judicial and executive branches included supporting , promoting verbally or actively this islam death idolatres conspiracy taken against the jews, taken against their state and institutions is a gov't betraying the jewish life of liberty, freedom as national aspiration in their holy land promised to the new , modern Israelis by their generations of ancestral hebrews eternal heritage, you either with us or against us ,

Where did you get the pack of lies you're spouting off? Israel has no problem with a PEACEFUL Palestinian state alongside her. Israel has no problem with her Palestinian citizens living in their homes in Israel; she has a BIG PROBLEM with the notion of being overwhelmed by 4,000,000 so-called "refugees", most of whom weren't even alive in 1948. Palestinians are free to live in Gaza and the West Bank and form a government which recognizes the State of Israel and its existence. Without that, they are dooming themselves to eternal statelessness.

Finally! A Haaretz blurb without spin! "Abbas tells Blair that Palestinians are committed to rejecting violence, int'l law and past treaties with Israel." I cant believe Haaretz tells the truth! "Palestinians are committed to rejecting int'l law". "Palestinians are commited to rejecting past treaties with Israel". Exactly.

SOLUTIONS to Cutting the Zionist-Gordian Knot: 1] Palestinians could annex Israel and form one truly democratic state, sending the Russian Mob back to source. 2] Palestine could declare its borders, ask the GA to accept them and wait for the USI to renounce them. The squatters would have the same rights as Palestinians and no more but a special tax on them for squatting on Palestine. 3] Move Israel to Canada [granting them most of AB, SK, MB] and they could bring their nuclear and biological weapons [al la CHOSEN WORLD - Our war on Islam and our own freedoms] Chew on that.

When Alfred Tennyson wrote Their's not to make reply, Their's not to reason why, Their's but to do and die: He was refering to an ill prepared and ill excuted battle during the Crimean War.ehen cavalry bearing only light arms, attempted to capture the Russian gun redoubts at Balaclava. Of the six hundred and seventy three vavalry men involved only a hundred and ninety five survived unwounded. The poem is as much a condemnation of those who gave the order as it is a commendation of those who died obeying it This poem might haunt Tony Blair as he contemplates his Iraq withdrawl policy

Haiti is the image of a palestinian state in the West. Despite the presence of thousands of U.N. troops and a new military offensive to root out gangs, armed thugs still rule much of the capital, where many of the 2 million residents live in tin or cinder-block shacks. A swarm of recent kidnappings is terrorizing residents and scaring away foreign investment. Dozens of schools closed in December after students were kidnapped in a series of incidents and a school bus was hijacked. That month, at least 100 people were reported kidnapped, the most since August, when 115 were abducted. Victim advocates say the real numbers may be much higher; once freed, people often are afraid to go to the police. Haiti's government has been powerless to stop the crisis. International advisers describe the police force and judicial system as critically dysfunctional and profoundly corrupt. "We are a failed state -- our institutions are bad, they don't work," said Kesner F. Pharel, a Haitian economist.

Dino ! I belive that ETA example is much more relevant to our case. ETA did not fullfill the ceae-fire agreement ! Natural Spain goverment reaction, no more peace talk. All around the world people keep complaining that Israel does not respect Palestinian democracy and also impose pre-conditions to accept Hamas as a peace partner. One of the most crucial points of democracy is to honour previous agreements, otherwise it should be named Anarchy. The simple three items required by the Quartet had been agreed in 1993 by Arafat himself - I am pretty sure , you are fully aware ! What's the point working so hard in order to get a peace deal, if you are not sure about next govement honoring it ? P.S. Which is exactly the case here !!!

Blair is another mouthpiece and lap dog for the crook in the Whitehouse and the land thieves and oppressors in Israel. Abbas should have bypass him. Dutch

The Earl of Chatham (Pitt the elder) never embarked on unilateral military foreign adventures ,further more he was not a contemporary of nineteenth century British Politics . His son was. (Pitt the younger) however avoided war with France as much as he could, until it was forced upon him in 1793 by France's attack upon Holland, to which England was bound by treaty obligations. You do of course know the sad circumstances of his death. Perhaps the example you are looking for is that of Lord Palmerston , he did as Foreign and later British prime minister follow a somewhat assertive foreign policy , but only when circumstances allowed. Lord Palmerston famously described British foreign policy in these words, (Britain has no eternal friends and no eternal enemies, only eternal interests.) A description still valid today. The refrence ''Do or die'' has never applied to politicians of any party in any country.This fate has always been unfortunatly reserved to the fighting soldier

What does this pompous brit think of What.He is part of the empire that built the reseves,and mandated jews to israel,throwing palestinians in refugee camps.All based on 3000 year old jewish writeings.We have all read our ancient folklore.With incredible feats.But we dont apply that to the rest of the world.If i was irish and my old books said we would prove the presance of god by going to ireland.How many would go and kill to retain land.Who the hell is blair to tell palestinians what to do,while he is being funded by lord goldsmith and levy.Their are people out side the zionist world who you can not manipulate through money and propaganda.

Blair is leaving the Holy Alliance.

ScotGuy, I am still a bit puzzled about your political position. I have seen some posts of yours on the "illegal settlements" article where you were vehemently defending Peace Now and describing yourself as a moderate. But here again you are "bashing" Blair and Labour for indicating some possible low-level talks with the more "moderate" wing of Hamas (note: not an immediate end of the sanctions). What's so wrong with that, sounds like a quite moderate (Labour) position to me....?? P.S. Is there still a Conservative Party in Scotland or did they throw the towel a while ago....??

The two guys who seriously contend taking over from Blair are Cameron and Gordon Brown. Neither of them are to the left of Tony Blair, Gordon Brown is an intelligent and pragmatic guy, and has already expressed that he is concerned with terrorism and would not do any radical change to Britains foreign policy. Cameron is from the conservative power who is traditionally more hard line than Labour. Having said all this, as I said before, Britain is not in this for the sake of the Jewish people or even for the sake of the USA, the british government does not want the Middle East to be taken over powers hostile to Britain and to the west, and in this recognizes in Israel a valuable and reliable ally. It should be said that the EU and the USA has the same stance. It is absolutely idiotic to think that the US, the UK or the EU will suddenly befriend Jihadists and leave Israel to it's own fate.

In the last two days there have been attacks using chemicals in Iraq. Yet nobody is mentioning it. As for the Palestinian question, the UK talked to the IRA, so Israel is going to have to talk to someone. It depends whether Israel wants to enter negotiation on it's terms, or be told it's terms by the US. I still believe we went to Iraq, in return for a palestinian state.

Is Labor now suffering from the same kind of problems that the Liberal party faced under Bevin before WWI? (When Labor appeared, and became more Liberal than the Liberals?) Is there a more "liberal" British party-alternative waiting in the wings?

Where I disagree: you said Britsh foreign and domestic policy has ALWAYS been based on pragmatism and compromise. That "always" should be a "mostly." Otherwise, Tennyson wouldn't have written "theirs not to wonder why, theirs but to do or die..;" Arnold wouldn't have written "...where ignorant armies clash by night;" and Gilbert&Sullivan wouldn't have produced "if noble fingers do not itch, to interfere in matters which they do not understand..."

I have little doubt that Bush administration has already decided that bringing democracy to Iraq is a fool's game, and the plan now is to withdraw and leave in place a military dictatorship, not unlike Algeria's. The Brit and miscellaneous allied pullouts have to be done first, so they won't be in the way when US armed forces turns over power to the next "strong man". Of course this dictator will be made quite aware that his neck, as well as the lives of his sons and brothers, is on the line if he goes too far in opposing US policy, the way his predecessor Sadaam did.

There is nothing exciting here--and should be expected to occur one way or the other. The US, regardless of its policies vis a vis Hamas will still maintain contacts with Abbas too. The EU will try to find a way to fund the government while not compelling the government to formally disavow militias that remain "illegal combatants" under conventions of war. Anti-Zionists however should not take this to mean that the EU is prepared to move on to dramatic pressures for unilateral Israeli withdrawal.

I mainly agree with you. Nothing is worse than being wishy-washy and doing two things wrong as a result. But just because England's past statesmen sought coalitions when it suited their interests doesn't mean they were afraid of acting unilaterally when they felt it was necessary. If you know who Chatham was, you will also know that's a fact.

There are some people who post in these rooms that really believe that the US, the UK and the EU base their policy with the sole intention of helping out Israel. This is the tip of the Iceberg of even more idiotic anti-semitism where it would follow that the Jews actually control the foreign policies of these powers in a war against Islam. I've got news for you guys, these organizations and countries think about their own interests, and what they want is a stable Middle East open for business as usual, and crazy terrorist organizations who want to put the entire world under Muslim Law, make war against the USA and the west, and promote an ethnic cleansing of the Jews simply don't fit into these countries geo-political interests. The equation for peace passes through the recognition and the continued existence of Israel and a fair settlement for the Palestinians. The destruction of Israel is unacceptable for any lucid power in this world.

It is sad to see a guy who was manly enough to support the Iraq war and defended Israels right to defend itself against the overwhelming majority of the public opinion and at a great political cost, try to unsink the Labour party by withdrawing his support to Israel. It is a pathetic final chapter.

Yaakov, how about you invite some members of Hamas peace party over to your house for dinner and conversation. I'm sure you would find out exactly how peaceful their intentions are. No matter how rabidly anti Israel you are Yaakov, you would end up dead or kidnapped.

British foreign and domestic policy has always in the past been based on pragmatism and compromis.During the early nineteenth century, when (Walpole, Chatham, and Castlereagh) where involved in politics, Britain was the number one world power. Yet in confronting adversarial events in Europe it sought the widest possible coalition and shunned unilateral action. On domestic policy the British establishment?s ability to compromise and bend with the wind of change is what spared it the revolutionary upheavals of nineteen century Europe. British politics is best summed up as pragmatic compromise, In pursuit of British national interest. To the extent that Tony Blair has shunned that tradition and deviated from that policy, in his alliance with an uncompromising ideologically driven Bush foreign policy, The names you mention as well as others would feel most uncomfortable and perhaps turn in their grave.

- to recognize...ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO EXIST (HAMAS CHARTER); - to accept...PREVIOUSLY REACHED AGGREEMENTS; - to reject...ANY VIOLENCE (INCLUDING TERRORISM OF ANY FACTION). The attitude of the WEST shouldn't change

"...with a government that says 'We don't even recognize the right of Israel to exist' - that's the problem." This is the crowning of UK hypocrisy. They see the Hamas charter as a problem, yet don't see the Israeli stance of being unwilling to let a Palestinian state exist, or the Israeli objections to Palestinians live in peace in their own homes, as an issue. Heck, they didn't see the Israeli objections to recognizing the Palestinians as human beings with rights as an issue, which is why they supported the butcher Sharon. Why should the UK change this late in the game?

Blair is absolutely correct, it is at least worth a try. There are clearly different political wings within Hamas, if Israels governement would have been smart, it would have tried for a long time to get in contact with the "moderate" wing around Haniyeh. No guarantee that it will work, but everything else tried till now, didn't bring any results. So why not give it a chance...?? I remember that Olmert was calling Blair a "great friend of Israel", so there should be really no reason for Israelis to mistrust him now. There once was a Catholic terror-group called IRA, and everybody said they would never change....

Of course, it MUST include everything within 10 km. of Westminster Abbey.

"British Prime Minister Tony Blair said on Wednesday it was possible to make progress in the Middle East with 'sensible' members of Hamas." OK then, we find "sensible" Hamas members who are willing to renounce terrorism and accept Israel's right to exist. Other Hamas members will continue their policy of genocide. Will these "sensible" Hamas members move to stop the radicals? Fatah wouldn't do it, so why should we expect Hamas to do so?

The war in Iraq is not for Israel's benefit, and it never was. If you disagree, explain how setting up a pro-Iranian, Shitte extremist government helps Israel. Those of you who hate Israel should be supporting this war. Most Israelis seem to disapprove of the Iraq war. The head of the Shin Beit refered to Saddam's rule as "the good old days." True Olmert supports the war, but Olmert would eat a ham sandwich if Bush told him to. And with a 17% approval rating, Olmert hardly speaks for the typical Israeli.

Of course it is easier to come to an agreement with a unified government, but not one that goes back to advocating Israels distruction. Every member of Hamas has to adhere to it's charter, which calls for the elimination of Israel. Do you think that is reasonable Mr. Blair? Do you think it is reasonable for Israel to scrap all the progress made to mutual recognition? Come, come Mr. Blair, be reasonable if you can! If not you have lost your sense of reason.

"they don't want to kill you. They just want your homes and land" Sounds like what Israel has been doing since 1967 in their occupied terrritories to me, not to you? Deja vu is right!

The quartet and the Europeans are begining to accept the moderating Hamas positions which are based on logic and good thinking. The only remaining terrorists are Islamic Jihad and rogue splinter factions, not Hamas so much anymore. They are still observing a cease fire. I think things are looking up in Gaza and soon this remarkably durable truce will spread to the West Bank - as soon as a dozen outposts are removed and the Temple Mount dig is stopped we can expect to see progress there. Next, tear down that obscene and useless temporary wall!

Here's that eerie feeling all over again. "these are the good terrorist, you Jews can make peace with them. It's better than giving your country to the bad terrorists". "they don't want to kill you, they only want your homes and land" What a sick joke.

Care to provide even a shred of evidence that Israel wanted the US to attack Iraq? Or are you just being provocative? The way I see it, that was the last thing Israel wanted the US to do, precisely because of what would remain after the US allowed the new Iraqi constitution to institutionalize Muslim discrimination, and then withdrew without ever having created a real democracy there. We'll see.

Another retreat from realpolitik into the fairy land of wishful thinking. Walpole, Chatham, and Castlereagh, must be sick in their graves.

Interesting times ahead, indeed. Hamas was tagged as a "terrorist" organization by the West. We now see cracks in the West's presumably united stance on Hamas. I doubt Bush II will listen to Blair anyway. But the good news is that the illegal sanctions imposed on Palestine, a punishment for practicing democracy, will be lifted soon. Omelette, you're one lame leader. Who's laughing now? NEGOTIATE WITH HAMAS AND STOP DISILLUSIONING YOURSELVES.

Both of his positions seem well thought out and reasonable. Blair knows the Iraq war was started on faulty intelligence. No WMD's but Iraq now is grown WMDs of a different sort - Iraqui and Iranian Arabs as angry at him as the Palistinians and Lebanese. No sense making 1/3rd of the world mad for nothing. They didn't even find any scuds in Iraq. Unity government in Palistine is great idea. Kadima should also join this coalition. Cheers

does blair really think that those who join hamas do so despite their tolatarian and hateful stance on everything? does he really know that even a hamas 'moderate' would still be unacceptable on many levels? wishful thinking at best, but has nothing to do with reality.

How do you deal with the ban on alcohol? Was that an adjustment for you?

If they go against own country their grievances must be real and appeasement by GB is necessary. Hunting them down doesn't solve anything and antagonises the Brit Muslims who are the Salt of the Earth

For the past few yrs, blair really felt he could have some influence over the bush. He tried and tried, particularly on the Israel/Palestine question, but to no avail. with iraq on fire, bush just didnt have the stamina. All his homedown talk, his grinning and the nice jumper for blair at Christmas,just didnt add up. blair got nothing in return. blair is on the way out, his support for the bush has alienated him from his constituents and he realises bush will never pressure israel. So for the first itme in yrs blair has taken a step by accepting the Mecca Accord as a positive sign. Convince bush he won't but it may influence the EU position in accepting the Mecca Accord as a basis for negotiations.We hope so.

tony probably has talks with "sensible" al quada "folks" and maybe even sensible leaders amounst the iraqi insurgency. What a total and complete ass

It is unlikely that with "sensible" Hamas to make any progress.

For those who have been watching carefully this is no surprise. The Brits have been abandoning bases and pulling back operations for a year. The First Poodle has been under intense pressure from Britons to get out. He sees the end of his beloved King George II coming. He is going to be out Downing Street in a short while. His army is full of men not willing to be the last to die in a lost war. Time to slink slowly towards the exit and hope no one calls it what is is. The march out of defeat.

Looks like the coalition in Iraq will be a coalition of one. Israel will only have US soldiers dying for them in the war they largely helped to orchestrate. As for Iran who will the Israelis get to carry out their deeds. Better hurry .

Hey, where is everybody. Isn't this article interesting enough to respond. Oh, yeah, everybody is so stunt and doesn't know what to say. YOU LOST, and let those insurgents hunt you home.

Blair is one of the architects of the catastrophic war, and he doesn't want to admit that it was a disastrous decision. A total troop withdrawal, which is what is needed, would constitute an admission of error. Yet Parliament and the British people require a withdrawal. So what Blair is going for is slow motion withdrawal, hoping that we won't think it's an admission of error, enabling him to keep face. It doesn't matter. He'll be gone within months, and his successor, probably the Scotsman Gordon Brown, is likely to have other plans. What all this signals, additionally, is that those folk who think that Britain might get involved in an attack on Iran are going to be sadly disappointed.

..."Britain is to pull all of its 7,200 troops out of Iraq by the end of 2008, beginning with a withdrawal of 1,000 in the early summer..." Why Blair? Are you starting to feel the heat in combating innocent civilians? Oh, ok, I knew it. That is because Th Queen Elizabeth doesn't want to see both of her (military) grandsons being sent to the Hell of Iraq and become the TROPHY TARGETS OF IRSURGENTS. Yes, that's the reason.