SawZaw, You say the Palestinians can have peace if they want it, but they choose war. It's an argument that can be leaned both ways.

It seems to me that the only way Palestinians can obtain peace is if they accept the status quo or more, i.e they accept that Israel is in occupation of the West Bank and agree to accept even further exapnsion into their territory. That whatever nominal 'authority' the Palestinian Authority might have would only be over Palestinians (and not Israeli colonists in the West Bank), that they would accept the two-tier society created by Israel in the occupied territories such as having certain roads closed to palestinians, restrictions on their movement and trade and Israel being the final arbiter of every significant decision made.

Obviously the rockets etc., would have to stop, that goes without saying. But the Israeli army would continue to have free access to the West Bank, and the colonists the right to be armed. And that's not even mentioning Gaza.

Do you think this is an acceptable basis for peace?

The occupation of the West Bank and blockade / economic squeeze on Gaza are issues that I have yet to say any supporter of Israel say are objectionable policies, or concede that they might be contributing to the problem rather than the solution.

Teribus - you mentioned that (according to you) Hamas was powered by Iraq until Iraq was taken ot of the picture, and now Iran is behind it. Therefore Hamas was first the proxy of Iraq, and then Iran. But for this to be true it would have to mean Hamas is motivated by no ideology at all - the aims and attitudes of Iraq and Iran couldn't be more different - they were at war with each other for almost 10 years as you may remember.

A far more likely and believable scenario is that Hamas is willing to accept sponsorship from anyone who's willing to help it financially or militarily. It would suggest Hamas has an independent ideology and program of its own and is the stooge of neither Iraq nor Iran.

In the 1980s the IRA accepted a few tonnes of weapons from Muammar Ghaddafi (he was pissed off at the bombing of Tripoli and saw it as a way to get back at the US and UK). By no stretch of imagination could the IRA be considered as being Islamic fundamentalists (I'm fairly sure most IRA members were either atheists or agnostics) but they were willing o accept weapons from anyone - Russians, Yanks or Libyans. Yet they had an ideology and agenda all of their own and were not 'Moscow's arm in Britain' or any such nonsense, despite the claims of the tabloids at the time.

[None of this is by way of saying either Hamas or the IRA are right in what they do, just that calling Hamas Iran's stooge doesn't hold up to scrutiny).