NP - Palestinian Moderate Leader's Home Shelled

[calbert at tiac.net]

David Morris:

>.....I would argue that
> Israel is now doing what the PLO/PA has been doing for decades
> 
> But the imbalance of power between the two sides makes for the
> difference.

But Israel is not in a position to employ what constitutes its "power" 
advantage......In this particular arena, the "practical" power at the 
disposal of each participant seems roughly equal to me......
 

> > "Few acts" - this is an interesting qualification. The type of "war"
> > being waged by the PLO/PA DOES NOT rely in any way on attacks
> > against "occupying forces" or their assets
> 
> Not true.  The vast majority of the deaths in this conflict are
> Palestinians shot in the act of throwing stones at occupying forces.

This conflates the toll with the strategy, which has two poles......one 
is the cynical use of children to confront heavily armed troops, not 
in the peaceful manner associated with that brave chinese guy 
staring down the tank in Tianamen Sq., but rather with the deliberate 
intent to escalate the confrontation....The second pole involves the 
use of terror against Israeli CIVILIANS, whose only provocation is 
their presence.....I can't think of a single instance (which means little 
in the scope of things) in which an armed PLO/PA faction has 
struck against a MILITARY target....but I can remember a man who 
was afforded martyr status by the PLO for machine gunning a 
school bus............
 
> But I do recognize that they are also now using arms, but again mostly
> at armed forces or "settlers" on Palestinian land.

One of those "settlers" was a infant girl, shot in the head by a 
sniper, that is a strategy of deliberate targeting.....again, I am aware 
of but one incident where PA arms were used in a direct 
confrontation (which erupted spontaneously) with Israeli military.....

> Terrorism is a strategy of desperation, typically used against an
> overwhelmingly strong opponent, and usually by an occupied populace. 
> I would argue that sometimes it is the only option to force change.

Terrorism can also be a strategy of opportunism. If "desperation" 
was the principal criterion, then the "marsh arabs" of Iraq, or jewish 
minorities in arab nations would be setting themselves off in crowded 
quarters on a daily basis.....as a rhetorical issue I object to the 
ready classification of the Palestinians in Israel as an "occupied 
populace"......if the british mandate is binding on Jordan and 
Jordanians, it should be no less legitimate for the existence of a 
jewish homeland in the area.......I don't know that "Palestine" has 
ever been recognized as a sovereign entity in the past, even Edward 
Said has acknowledged that his own father loathed spending time 
there, preferring instead Cairo...


> No, I concede that there is an organization at work (and I'll agree
> that it is not "democratic" and contains some bad high-ranking
> characters), but I don't concede that all in the PA are unified in
> promoting these attacks, nor equally extreme. 

Perhaps not, but those whose voices matter sure seem to be....but if 
you recognize that the PA is not democratic, and that its 
membership includes some "bad characters" then what will it take to 
convince you that dealing with such an organization is inherently 
dangerous..... 

 That's where the
> "moderate" distinction becomes significant.  Your contention seems to
> be that no dissention is allowed in that organization, so they MUST
> all be in league and thus all equally justifiable targets.

Pretty much......and anyone who lives a life of privilege under such 
an Authority is more likely to be complicit with it than critical of 
it....and I remind you again that the strategy the PA employs against 
its opponents makes NO EFFORT at all to determine the culpability 
of its targets.......

there is also the rather disquieting attitude revealed in the human 
right report I cited.......Israel is in a "battle" with Palestinians, but 
what the hell explains the need of a Palestinian functionary to stomp 
a Palestinian applicant for a visa to death, and what does it say 
about the principles of an administration which can identify the 
culprit, but does NOTHING?

> The NYT article referenced an editorial in the Haaretz,
> ( http://www3.haaretz.co.il/eng/htmls/kat10_2.htm )
> which concludes that Sharon's unstated strategy is the complete
> collapse of the PA, which would be justified if one concluded that
> there are no moderates to work with.  I don't think that most people
> in Israel believe that, which is why Sharon's strategy is so cynical: 
> He really wants to annex.

Barak paid very dearly for his willingness to acceed to a radical 
peace proposal. Arafat proved unworthy of that trust, and now he 
has Sharon to deal with. I'm not a big fan of Ariel's, but here the 
palestinians have no-one to blame but old Amu. On the other hand 
the PA (as currently constructed) has no real interest in peace. The 
minute their consitutents no longer have the great Zionist satan to 
focus on, they will start asking questions about why they have to live 
under unaccountable regimes, and, generally, in squalor.....and 
that, mon ami, is the REAL reason peace is so problematic.....

I would not blame those who would accuse me of a bias against 
Palestinians, but I can only protest that I firmly believe that the 
Palestinians, like the Lebanese, are an untapped resource in the 
region. Given half a chance, a palestinian state could easily be a 
"tiger" of the 21st century - and a coalition between such a state and 
a state of Israel would prove formidable indeed.....There is MUCH 
more to be gained on both sides by peaceful co-existence, and 
such will more readily be reached if the leaders of repressive arab 
nations were no longer able to manipulate the situation....

hoping I won't find any Morris kids chucking stones on my front 
lawn....



love,
cfa