>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.

While no source is 100% credible, I have found the NY Times to be a good one. If indeed the NY Times reported on what another reporter claimed was a conversation that took place years ago, we're still relying on a reporter's notes from a conversation that took place years ago. The NY Times simply reporting it doesn't make the story credible, the same as the NY Times reporting any other claims. If the NY Times followed up this story and found others making the same claim, the story gains a lot more credibility. I think relying on one source from a conversation that took place years ago as proof of fact is disingenuous at best.

>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.

Maybe a good move for Hamas would be to actually recognize that Israel isn't going to be wiped off the map and recognize their right to exist, as Egypt and Jordan have done.

>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.

Well, good will is the key term here. I think the Israelis are probably considering that Hamas specifically has it in their charter that they want Israel destroyed is not considered good will.

>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.

I am interested in how where you get this insight into Hamas. You're sure it's just a negotiating tactic, despite the fact that they openly call for the destruction of Israel?

>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.

They appear to have stable borders with Egypt and Jordan, borders that have been stable for sometime now. Their border with Lebanon was certainly stable. Well, until Hezbollah started the recent crisis.