The editorial's conclusions are valid. The US and Israel should deal with all groups in Palestine in order to reach a peace agreement. But the Palestinians have no partner for peace in the present government. Olmert still demands that the Fatah government control the terror groups before any negotiations take place. In other words, Surrender, then we will talk.

Before the recent election in the Labor party, one opinion piece in Ha'aretz recommended that their new leader of the party should have some military experience. Certainly, after the recent fiasco in Lebanon, it would, on the surface, seem like a good idea. But, after the fact, and Barak emerging as the winner, I had second thoughts on this election. The other guy was a peace candidate, and Barak had authorized Sharon to take his little walk around the al-Aqsa mosque that started the second intifada. The most hated man in the Middle East marching around Islam third-most holy spot was designed to break the Oslo Accords by starting the violence over again. Since his election, Barak has expressed admiration for Shamir and more conservative leaders, so we may have a closet Likudnic in Barak. Brings to mind Lieberman in the US.

The violence will continue and there will be no peace agreement for the foreseeable future. I do not think the Palestinian people will tolerate the division of Gaza from the West Bank, but the present arrrangement will give the a chance to compare Fatah and Hamas rule. They will evenutally have to come together. There will be more rockets from Gaza, and the Israeli will eventually have to come to terms, in some fashion, with the Palestinian "nation."

Pervis J. Casey

Riverside, CA