Good Lord, this is the measure of your analysis...whether or not Iran issues a denial

And the measure of yours is what, exactly? Is it, as I suspect a parallel to another in this thread, that the Jpost covered the story?

Hamas receives more money from Saudi Arabia than from Iran

But more weapons from Iran. And, more threats, apparently.

Let me ask you something...Why is it so important that Iran be behind all of this? Are you seeking some kind of causus

Because that scenario fits the facts to hand. Why is it so important that Iran NOT be behind all of this? Is it so you can lay further blame for the conflict on Israel, I wonder?

Good Lord, this is the measure of your analysis...whether or not Iran issues a denial. I thought that Iran was an untrustworthy bunch? Apparently not when they agree with your good ideas.

Just what constitutes a "proxy?" Hamas receives more money from Saudi Arabia than from Iran. Are you telling us all that Iran has more influence over a Sunni organization than Saudi Arabia does? Let's assume for a moment that I'm correct...Do Iran and Saudi Arabia's goals coincide?

Honestly you need to bury your emotion and start focusing on the FACTS. Iran is not calling the shots...and even if they were it would be impossible to know. Is it unreasonable to believe that perhaps Hamas doesn't like the Israelis based solely upon their own history?

Let me ask you something...Why is it so important that Iran be behind all of this? Are you seeking some kind of causus belli?

The implication being that the you would view the same evidence as trustworthy....

No, the implication is, I'd agree with the move.

So says an unnamed Egyptian official about a meeting in Syria that didn't involve any Egyptians, about a country and organization that Egypt is not particularly fond of, told to an Israeli newspaper

(Mumbles...And you wonder why we don't trust the Dinosaur media.)

ummm... have there been any denials on the point issued by Iran? They never hesitate to issue denials, right?

Were these wto in fact, there for the meeting?
(Clue: there are pictures)

That depends. Who has the White House at the time?

The implication being that the you would view the same evidence as trustworthy if it validates your already held beliefs, but not if it contradicts them.

Think about it this way, change the names of the players... Exchange the Palastinians for Israel, and exchange Iran for the US. Given the situation as described above, would you not say Israel was a proxy for the US in the region?

Okay, lets play that hypothetical. Say an unnamed Syrian official claims in a Gaza paper that US representatives met with Israeli representatives in Riyadh and told them not to agree to the cease fire.

Now tell me, wouldn't you be skeptical about that claim?

I should think that self evident;
Hamas IS a proxy for Iran.

So says an unnamed Egyptian official about a meeting in Syria that didn't involve any Egyptians, about a country and organization that Egypt is not particularly fond of, told to an Israeli newspaper.

But hey, if that's enough proof for you...

Think about it this way, change the names of the players... Exchange the Palastinians for Israel, and exchange Iran for the US. Given the situation as described above, would you not say Israel was a proxy for the US in the region?

Any questions, class?

Yes: Why was that relevant?

Iran is exerting heavy pressure on Hamas not to accept the Egyptian proposal for a cease-fire with Israel, an Egyptian government official said on Sunday.

…
The Egyptian official said that the two Iranian emissaries, Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Iranian Parliament, and Said Jalili of the Iranian Intelligence Service, met in the Syrian capital with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal and Islamic Jihad Secretary-General Ramadan Shallah.

“As soon as the Iranians heard about the Egyptian cease-fire initiative, they dispatched the two officials to Damascus on an urgent mission to warn the Palestinians against accepting it,” the Egyptian government official told the Post.

“The Iranians threatened to stop weapons supplies and funding to the Palestinian factions if they agreed to a cease-fire with Israel. The Iranians want to fight Israel and the US indirectly. They are doing this through Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon”.

Any questions, class?

As dangerous as Iran is, they are not the responsible party in this case. Rather than propose another war be started, perhaps these individuals should take the time to understand this problem...or are our men and women not worth the effort?

After the revolution, under the rhetorical surface, there has been three periods in Iran\Israel relationship.

Period One, until the outburst Iran-Iraq war in 1980, Iran was building relation with palestinians and distancing from Israel, Arafat went to Iran and was promised a lot of money (but never received more than a few percent of it!), there he noticed that Iranians are not true, but tactical supporters of Palestine and that feeling is still in the hearts of Palestinians.

Period Two, after the outburst of Iran\Iraq war, almost all Arabs, including Palestinians sided with Iraq, Arafat praised Saddam, so Iran got much closer to Israel, all Iranian logistics were American while there was no relation with the US, much of Iran's need was provided through Israel, as Iran was fighting the direct enemy of Israel, i.e. Arab Iraq. this unspoken bond was in effect until after the first (Persian) Gulf war. when Iraq became so weak, and with Iran's ambition (and growing population and power) Arab were more afraid of Iran than Israel. Israel took advantage of the situation and changed enemies. Recall that the Iranian-Arab conflict is much older than the Israeli-Arab conflict! This achieved its height in double containment and Helm-Burton and D'Amoto law's in US congress that banned trade with Iran (and they really hurt Iran's economy extensively, nearly every Iranian was supporting Bush in 2000, cause they hated Clinton!) Iran saw all these things coming from Israel, and started investing against Israel ever since.

But Iran's most important concern is its sovereignty and fear of attack from US and being divided by force, that's why they are seeking Nuclear power. Ahmadi-Nejhad came to power merely because Iran-US talks failed, Iran has always been seeking an agreement with US in which US would promise not to attack and not to support dividing Iran, and correctly or incorrectly, Iran sees Israel as the force preventing it to happen. In 2003 Iran suggested an agreement with the US which entailed disarmament of Hezbollah (the true proxy of Iran which those who claim Iran is involved now should answer why Hezbollah is not doing anything) and recognizing Israel. It was rejected by Americans and Iran naturally blamed Israel for that. Since then Israel would become number one enemy of Arabs again.

Israel (in my belief) has never been afraid of a Nuclear Iran, but a Nuclear Arab world, and the first will lead to the second inevitably. Iran is a tactical enemy while the Arab neighbors are strategic ones.