>>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.

I've found this same story in dozens of places - my usual technique is to take a whole sentence from the article and google out where else was it published. You'd be amazed how many newspapers know about the clipboard.

>>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.

As Abu Abas was pressuring them to do so, they were already showing signs that they would - so bargaining had already begun.

>>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 same goes for Israeli politicians who claimed for years that the settlements are forever - and eventually removed them from Gaza. Or the current prez of US claiming that no child will be let behind then not disbursing funds for the program. As the Italian proverb goes, "a politician gives left turn signal, switches into the right lane, and drives straight". Maybe not that much in American politics (which has its separate set of mores), but quite customary elsewhere: what they say serves to appease some of their constituency, while they may covertly prepare an U-turn.

>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?

Just a somewhat qualified hunch. I've followed politics in three countries, and met people from several more. And I'm coming from a mixed culture, where you get some insight into cultural differences and how they can still come together. And, mind you, both Hebrew and Arabic are Semitic languages - and the origins of the two people overlap in several places: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic (and a few more on origins of both peoples).

>>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.

So we have two wild claims: Israel doesn't officially say where they think their borders will be (i.e. 1948, 1967, later borders, green line, wall line, biblical borders?), and several Palestinian organizations won't officially forget their promise to wipe Israel. Sounds like both sides have something big to give up and show magnanimity in some future negotiations.

I just wish to live to see it.