It's called irony.
1-You're the one who brought "extremists" into the discussion. If you don't like the implications, feel free to use whatever words you like.
2-Except that they are corroborated by numerous sources, as I mentioned. Besides which, using unnamed sources doesn't constitute "yellow journalism," especially in cases where you're dealing with leakers. Read All the President's Men some time if you want to get an idea how the editorial process works.
In regards to 1, you are absolutely correct I raised the word extremist, and yes I challenge the inferences NOT implications you have made which suggest extremists and terrorists are one and the same. What you call implications I challenge as unreasonable assumptions by you precisely because logic tells us not all extremists believe in terrorism, not all extremists believe in using violence to express their views. As well what you and I may consider extreme, i.e., the views of Shas or the right wing of Likud or some of the religious parties in Netanyahu's coalition, others consider status quo.
For example for years Hamas in Gaza was extremist but non terrorist before a struggle saw a new circle come to power that now advocates terrorism.
In regards to 2, no the "leaks: you referred to were not corroborated. For me, quoting an uncorroborated source is yellow journalism. I find it yellow because it can't be verified.
The book " All The President's Men" was simply a hard cover version of a typical trash tabloid article. Until the many allegations in it could be verified and corroborated all it was-was yellow journalism or gossip.
I have written for magazines and newspapers. I also appreciate standards of journalism have changed over the years but I am still one of many who believe there is no integrity to an article that can not be corroborated following the same principle as to why in the court system, evidence is not considered admissable and credible until it can be corroborated and tested for its authenticity.
We have the heresay rule of evidence in the court system precisely to protect and assure evidence relied on can be tested and verified. Uncorroborated remarks can not be.
Intelligence is about spreading disinformation, i.e., placing a tiny bit of truth with a whoel lot of fabrication-we all know that. It would be unreasonable to think any one claiming to work in intelligence would not at any given time be spreading disinformation.
No I do not for a second find it credible to have some uncorroborated source "leaking" information that is not substantiated in any way. That is illogical. No I do not simply accept what people tell me without being able to prove it using an objective methodology that can test its veracity.
Come back when you have some corroborated documents.
By the way no I do not disagree that the Shas party, a faction of Likud and other parties in Netanyahu's coalition are extremist and intransigent and some are fundamentalist in religious views. I also believe Netanyahu does not have the mandate with the coalition he has to move settlers out of the West Bank as part of a peace process.
The fact is unless Kadima-Labour are brought back into the equation, Israel's current regime can not make any vital decisions as to settlements.
That said Mr. Abbas has the exact same problem. He has no control of Hamas, Fatah Hawks, and other factions within the PA that do not want peace and are aligned with terrorists such as Hamas, Intifadah, Hezbollah, or who are against terrorism but do not want a two state solution.
Abbas and Netanyahu are both paralyzed by the extremists in their coalitions. What I am suggesting is however unlike Hamas or Intifadah or Fatah Hawks with Abbas, Netanyahu does have full control of the IDF and does not like Abbas with Hamas, fatah Hawks, etc., have to worry about his "army" simply acting on its own and ignoring him.
I amalso suggesting both leaders could equally be targets of fanatics from their own people who if they could would kill them for daring to talk peace.
The killings of Sadat and Rabin are a vivid reminder of that.