How can you write a piece about the "real" Hamas if you don't interview anyone in a REAL position of power? She interviewed a figurehead politician whose job it is to meet with people like her and tell her that Hamas is good and great and adheres to its agreements.

For instance, she makes a big deal out the "truce" with statements like this:

"But at the level of deeds, the fact that for nearly all of the past year the Hamas leaders have stuck to their sometimes unpopular commitments under the tahdi'eh should be recognized..."

This isn't true. It isn't even remotely true. Hamas has been launching missiles into Israel from Gaza since they declared this so-called "truce". They've been dropping bombs on anyone, regardless of who they are or what they do or whether they serve in the military actively or not. The effect of this statement, even if it were true, is rather grotesque. It's yet another attempt to say that the Arabs are normally animals so we must bend over backwards, like desperate parents, to congratulate them when they don't kill.

What about their relationship to other suicide groups? There is some news that the military wings of the other organizations are coordinating their attacks on Israelis. What this means is that the "moderates," like the loser she interviewed, can hide behind the veneer of gentility while funding and directing other terrorists to do their dirty work.

She reports that they believe they have a legitimate right to fight "occupation" with whatever military assets they can get. Even if their assertion were true, International Law is very, very clear about what constitutes a military target and what does not. You have to be in clearly marked military garments, you have to be holding a weapon, and you can't be in a civilian population center. That's some of what defines a legitimate target. Hamas kills anyone they can. They launch missiles, send suicide bombers to deli stands and bus terminals, kidnap Jews and kill them, and hire people to knife Jews, regardless of what they're wearing.

The final coup de grace was the argument that defined borders comes before recognition. This reveals, very clearly, that even the so-called moderates have an obvious agenda. Recognition of a people to exist has nothing to do whatsoever with where they are or how big their parcel of land is. By saying that borders must come first, he's arguing that the Jews have no legitimate rights to their land, that there's no historical, cultural, or religious reason for them to be there. How can you start from a position of borders and then transition to existence? You can argue backwards if and only if you have a military objective and no recognition whatsover in the rights of the opposing party. It's the recognition of rights that is supposed to help one define why a people is where it is, where they should be concentrated based on language and history, and what their own connection to the land is. The Hamas position is one of boxing the Jews into a smaller sliver and then killing them when they can't defend themselves anymore.

Israel is going to annex chunks of Judea and Samaria.

They are going to keep Jerusalem, their capital.

Hamas can either play ball and govern responsibly or do what everyone

expects them to do, kill more Jews and blame the Jews for their own

misfortune.

Cobban writes that Hamas is reasonable and moderating while the Israelis are adamant and see things "darkly."

Cobban prints the usual unfairness of the numbers. During the 5 years of the intifada only 1000 Israelis were killed to several thousand Palestinians. Clearly unfair.

I agree, Ms. Cobban: on September 11, 2001, only 19 Arab hijackers died versus 2900 Americans. clearly, this makes the American case just, doesn't it?

There's no hope for peace in our lifetimes, short of the Messiah coming. Give up hope and adapt the reality-based worldview.

Congratulations to Helena Cobban for a well researched and objective look at Hamas, where the organisation has come from, and where it may go.

She was also right to mention the extreme stupidity of the Democrats in staking out a position on Israel to the RIGHT of even this administration, which is headed by the best President Likud has ever had.

I look forward to reading part two next week.

While Ms Cobban extols the virtues of Hamas as a political force, she misses the main point of the Palestinian democratic experiment - the choice between the snake and the rat. Hamas is the snake - deadly and ruthless in its determination to achieve a "victory" for it's people but clean in its dealing with the world. Fatah has become the rat, the consumer of the Palestinian tax and aid funds through corruption, featherbedding and just plain thievery while at the same time maintaining an ability to hold on to its power through political flexibility. With only a choice between the old and corrupt and the new and the clean, the Palestinians have rolled the dice and hoped that the new can at least clean up the current civil mess in their society while at the same time not bringing down Armageddon on their heads.

The situation now comes down to "wait and see" - to see if Hamas can collect the garbage and spread the taxes around to the benefit of the local population without at the same time turning the territories into Tabibanstan Light. They need money and funds and at this time with the EU (and maybe Iran) being the only one with deep pockets willing to toss money their way, the question is will they bide their time and not provoke an all out war with the Israelis through a renewal of military or suicide attacks. I certainly hope that everyone will just suck up their breath and see how this plays out for at least a few months. Sometimes responsibility can sober even the headiest of ideologies.

I would suggest watching the behavior of Hamas toward the supporters of Fatah and the other political Islamic parties in Palestine as well as toward the Christian Palestinian population remaining in the territories. If they move on these groups and try to establish an Islamic orthodoxy, then you might as well write them off as a serious alternative. If they behave well, then perhaps they can also deal with the Israelis too.

The paradigm of democracy that pulls views toward the center works when the voting parties are not constrained by militias that "enforce" their views - win or lose. I just wish that more people would realize that while democracy is the best hope for this area - because the people there truly want to run their own lives - until a nation state there can be strong enough to suppress the militias and just have a central army, these difficult choices - Snake or Rat - will continue to be the only show in town.