>>http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/Sept12.htm (among other thousands of places) has this nice quote from Moshe Dayan's interview for Maariv (also New York Times on May 11 1997):
>>Look, it's possible to talk in terms of 'the Syrians are bastards, you have to get them, and this is the right time,' and other such talk, but that is not policy," Dayan told Tal in 1976. "You don't strike at the enemy because he is a bastard, but because he threatens you. And the Syrians, on the fourth day of the war, were not a threat to us." According to the published notes, Tal began to remonstrate, "But they were sitting on the Golan Heights, and ...."Dayan interrupted: "Never mind that. After all, I know how at least 80 percent of the clashes there started. In my opinion, more than 80 percent, but let's talk about 80 percent. It went this way: We would send a tractor to plow some area where it wasn't possible to do anything, in the demilitarized area, and knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn't shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance farther, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later
>>the air force also, and that's how it was."
>
>Sorry, but it's difficult enough to get accurate information about what is going on now. You are apparently asking me to read a source that I have never heard of from a journalist who apparently had this conversation with Dayan years before he actually published it. Honestly, I don't know how that could be considered credible.

I don't have a subscription to NYT - but given the date you shouldn't have a problem to find this. And Maariv is an Israeli paper. But I know, whatever source I find, won't be credible.

>>That's called democracy. They had elections. The "given" should read "given by their people". Well, at least given the mandate - the rest was taken away (funds, freedom of movement and other minor details).
>
>And that is absolutely fine. Now they have to actually govern, rather than sit on the sidelines and criticize. So far, they don't appear to be doing very well. At some point, they are going to have to stop blaming others for their problems, the same as every government must eventually do.

Every other government has its borders open if it wants, and its own finances available. The Hamas government doesn't even own its borders, and the financial means to which it was entitled are stalled, diverted or simply held. Now you be a cook if you have nothing to cook.

>>Here's a probe they let out this fall: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9424469/ (still unofficial).
>
>Well, there it is. In their charter, they call for the destruction of Israel. Also, there is this from that article:
>
>The unprecedented comments by Mohammed Ghazal clashed with recent pronouncements of more senior Hamas officials in Gaza.
>
>Not only that, but the call for the "right of return".

But then they say "the charter is not Koran". It's just the mideastern way of bargaining - and I know the Israeli aren't inept at bargaining either. It'd be feasible, with sufficient good will.

>>Then, http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498851330&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
>
>According to a Thursday report on Al-Jazeera, the Hamas government will recognize Israel if Israel withdraws to the 1967 borders.
>
>It would be better to see the actual report, rather than an article saying what appeared on Al-Jazeera.

It was probably in Arabic - but if Jerusalem Post published it, it should mean something.

>>And http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/01/29/hamas.interview/ - specially this sentence: "Until Israel says what its final borders will be, Hamas will not say whether it will ever recognize Israel, Zahar said. "If Israel is ready to tell the people what is the official border, after that we are going to answer this question.""
>
>Yes, I noticed many things about the CNN interview:
>
>He would not commit to negotiating with Israel and would not say whether recognizing Israel's existence is a long-term possibility.
>
>I think Jim's idea about talking just went out the window.
>
>Meanwhile, here is what Israel had to say about talking:
>
>At Israel's Cabinet meeting, acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said Hamas must renounce violence for his country to negotiate with the new Palestinian leaders.
>
>Renounce violence. What a crazy condition for negotiations.
>
>But asked about Hamas' call for Israel's destruction, Zahar would not say whether that remains the goal. "We are not speaking about the future, we are speaking now," he said.
>
>Can you possibly explain what kind of double-speak that is?
>
>Iran's president has called for Israel's destruction.

The usual politician doublespeak. Few hard sentences to appease the hardliners in their own ranks, few signals to the other side that some venues for compromise may be open. Specially the "future vs now" part. Currently, while there's a war going on, any Palestine politician feels he'd lose a lot of rating at home if he didn't mention "ceterum censeo, Israel esse delendam", but the "that's now" means exactly that, IMO - tomorrow, when this war stops, we may be open for negotiations.

BTW, is it really true that Israel hasn't said yet where its borders would be, and that the biblical borders stretsh "from Nile to Euphrates"? Just found that somewhere while I was digging out these links.