Become? Where have you BEEN since 1948 (and that's a conservative estimate)? Hamas understands the point of terrorism as well as Trostsky did, while Al Qaeda either doesn't or chooses to ignore it. Doesn't legitimize or justify either, but I think it does give the Hamas a very slight leg up for the reasons I've often stated.

Sorry, I swapped Fatah and Hamas (again ' />) because I have trouble remembering which is which. Arafat blew it, yes, but I think he came to see that and tried to repair the damage--at which point FATAH blew it, seemed to regard him with as much contempt as they did Israel once he deigned to acknowledge outrages like Israels right to exist and a negotiated peace. They ultimately came to see the error of their ways, too, but that just meant they lost popular support and were replaced by Hamas. It's ironic that most of the oldest Western "civilizations" seemingly remain both unable and unwilling to achieve peace for longer than it takes to reload.

Only full Israeli capitulation, virtual suicide, would have given the Palestinians more than Oslo, which implies they weren't there to bargain, but to buy time to rearm and recruit, plus hopefully gain some more diplomatic cover for their next atrocity. Of course, since the Israeli government at the time was negotiating in good faith and committed to peace walking away revealed Fatah and Arafat as the wastes of skin they were. That's the point, that all Mid-East terror groups I know of HAVE no point, only rhetoric and propaganda. A sincere and realistic goal doesn't justify terrorism, but the absence of one reduces "terrorism" to mass murder. You can't rationalize something on the basis of the greater good if you won't accept that greater good as an alternative to the slaughter. That option has been on the table many times, to varying degrees, but only recently has it been seriously considered, and only after the fact, in scenarios like Arafat being beseiged in his own HQ and forced to deal. Offer their stated goals and they still prefer killing more women and children, and that makes them worse than terrorists in my book. Trotsky's no hero, but bin Laden and Co. are better compared to Charles Manson.

We don't ever seem to agree on that one though, and I believe we do understand each others positions, so further discussion will probably just result in retracing the same old paths to no purpose.

Of course it's abstract; it's a moment in time, and a vaguely defined one at that. It is NOT, however, without practical effect, because every revolution in history, successful or not, was the result of individuals deciding things were beyond the point of no return. The success of revolution often hinges on whether "the large majority of people disagrees" which is all the more chilling when we recall that majorities remain capable of error. That's the practical effect: When a large enough percentage of the populace feels reform impossible and rebellion their duty that the prisons can no longer hold them all.

I don't know what it's like elsewhere, but that remains a common topic of conversation in America, the country whose third President once looked forward to a revolution every four years. It probably always has been and probably always will be; "hunting clubs" aside, that's the reason the Second Amendment was written and remains part of the nations highest law. It's also why I want to be very careful of what I say and what I support, not just because of a pervasive and often paranoid intelligence community, but because the issue of whether rebellion is an urgent patriotic duty remains quite relevant to many Americans. I've no interest in a rebellion, and hence no interest in encouraging one, inadvertently or otherwise. We're still a long way from being unable to fix the system from within, IMHO, and I want to avoid any risk of implying otherwise.