I already knew that Arafat sent a letter to Rabin in 1993.

Just asking for your opinion of the statement.

Do you agree or disagree?

What would be gained if we had direct talks with Hamas and Israel did not? In the long run, the things the Palestinians need for establishing a homeland and a government are things the Israels cannot or will not let happen.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

An honest broker is needed acceptable to both sides. The US used to fill that role not but any longer. Maybe a new administration will be willing to try.

Do we blame Truman to put us in a position of not being an honest broker. It seems like the CIA noted that as an issue back in '47.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

"The US insisted that the elections be held over strenuous Israeli objections. After Hamas won, Condi and the rest of the Bush administration were shocked."

I remember that. There was total shock in the White House and Hamas was so grateful to Bush and the neocons. So, instead of folks currently taking jabs at Obama regarding Hamas, the reality is that Bush has been Hamas' best friend all along.

btw - Bush and company plotted to overthrow Hamas after the elections:

"The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza."

"...President George Bush and the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, signed off on a plan for the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, to remove the Hamas authorities in Gaza. The plan called for Washington's allies in the region to funnel arms and salaries to Fatah fighters who would lead a rising against Hamas."

US PLOT TO OVERTHROW HAMAS

It was hardly under the Bush admin that North Korea became a problem since NK was enriching uranium as far back as the early 1990's.

The 1990's was nothing but talking to North Korea and the IAEA being not allowed to do any inspections despite the worldwide suspicion that North Korea was trying to develop nukes. North Korea agreed and then withdrew from a 1994 agreement to freeze plutonium production and allow inspections. It got to the point that talking to those lunatics one-on-one was a waste of time, as were all the sanctions the UN imposed. It was only until talking to the two countries that solely keep N. Korea's government in existence-China and South Korea-did anything start to happen on the diplomatic front.

I'm not sure that you can talk and use diplomacy directly on mentally unstable people who are psychopaths. following the money/power and talking to those people works a lot better.

I don’t think so. The Bush administration formally announced it was withdrawing from the 1994 Agreed Framework on October 20, 2002. A month later, in December 2002, the North Koreans expelled the international weapons inspectors, restarted the nuclear reactor at Yongbyon and broke the seals on the fuel rods containers. From 1994 until December 2002 the North’s plutonium in the fuel rods was sealed and under the purview of the IAEA. The nuclear weapons were made from the reprocessed fuel rods. The uranium enrichment program was small and insignificant (details of which are to be released very soon by the Bush administration negotiators). In any event, the technical difficulties with enriching uranium would have taken the North decades to overcome as opposed to reprocessing the plutonium in the fuel rods.

North Korea and Pakistan had swapped technologies in post-Agreed that violated the uranium enrichment prohibition of that agreement. Between that and test firing an ICBM over Japan, and then admitting they had a secret nuke program only to later say "just kidding," I can understand why Cheney, err....Bush..withdrew from the agreement, as well as the fact that NK had already had a few nukes' worth of plutonium.

Now, the million dollar question is whether or not the info in 2002 from I believe the CIA concerning whether NK was in fact heavily involved in uranium enrichment is another question, but at that time the US was still actively having one-on-one talks with NK and supposedly the US ambassador was told by NK that they were pursuing uranium enrichment tech. Then it became a PR war of words with NK's typical crazed posturing and threats to the point that the Agreed fell apart.

Should those dealings be similar to how the US "dealt" with the lawfully elected Milosevic of Serbia/Yugoslavia?