The Iraq Study group relied, in part, on the "expert" testimony of Augustus Richard Norton - an anthropology professor - in formulating its report that provides a "roadmap" for appeasing terrorists in the Middle East. Norton writes an op-ed in this morning's Boston Globe ( a subsidiary of the New York Times) that calls for negotiations and outreach towards Hamas. Augustus Richard Norton chooses as his theme Palestinian fantasy versus reality. Speaking of fantasy, how about this statement from the op-ed:
"A wiser policy would have worked to implicate Hamas in the diplomatic process by insisting on incremental changes that would not only have been more palatable to the Islamist party but permitted it to demonstrate that it was winning some benefits in return for concessions. While the refusal of Hamas to concede the legitimacy of Israel is a core ideological value, the party also endorses a long-term ceasefire with Israel. The Hamas diplomatic position is actually close to that of Israel in terms of accepting negotiations as an incremental process. In contrast, the PLO spurns partial agreements and insists on moving to final status negotiations."
Hamas and Israel have similar diplomatic positions? Hamas has called for the destruction of Israel and attacks against Christians and Jews, Americans and others, around the world. Hamas has perpetrated terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians for years, has announced that it will not monitor the border with Israel, and has allowed endless round of missile attacks against Israel to be launched from the Gaza Strip (how is that for a "cease-fire?).
Are these the same diplomatic positions as Israel, a nation that has repeatedly announced its goal of recognizing a Palestinian state and a nation that does not call for attacks on people around the world?