In particular, Richman refers to Ethan Bronner's article Hamas Leader Calls for Two-State Solution, but Refuses to Renounce Violence (still not clear why terrorism would continue if 2 states is a solution)--where Bronner interviews Khaled Meshal of Hamas.
At one point there is something of a revelation that seems to have been glossed over by the media. Apparently not all of the agreement has been made publicly available:
Asked what had changed in recent months that allowed the long-delayed pact to go through, he said that both Fatah and the new Egyptian government had agreed, for the first time, to Hamas’s adding annexes to the agreement reflecting its views. He declined to elaborate on the contents of those additional items.
That raises the question why anyone would urge Israel to enter into talks with this new entity when it is not even clear what secret concessions Fatah has made to Hamas. Isn't anyone curious what Hamas was able to insert into the agreement that Fatah objected to till now?
There is something amiss here, and it should not require a Columbo--or an Inspector Clouseau--to see that.
Technorati Tag: Fatah and Hamas.
1 comment:
Why should Israel negotiate with a group that doesn't see Jews as human beings and for whom peace is only as a tactical weapon with which to defeat the Jewish State?
The problem has never been about territory, Jerusalem or the settlements. It has always been about Israel's existence.
No amount of Jewish niceness will conceal the fact that Israel's enemies are committed to a genocidal philosophy that calls for Israel's extinction.
Israel is not going to dig its own grave for them. Israel is not Czechoslovakia and the world will never decide the fate of the Jewish State.
Post a Comment