So, my left-wing friend in Israel thinks there are two basic scenarios for the new Palestinian Authority:
1) They introduce Shari'a in the territories, hook up with Hizballah, Iran, and Syria, get cut off from Western aid, but make up for it with funds from radical regimes. But they keep up the “hudna,” because it's in their own interest.
2) They start working with Third Way, including Hanan Ashrawi, etc., cozyong up to the west, trying to prove they are not the fundamentalists we think they are. Hudna, og course stays in place.
Or how about we try the radical assumption the left is so reluctant to entertain, namely that the Palestinians in fact aren't idiots. Hamas has always been pretty clear about what they want (a theocratic tyranny a la Taliban) all over today's Israel and Joran), and how they're going to get it (by the sword). or what they think of Jews and Christians. When the Palestinians embrace this platform, it's not because they're looking for peaceful co-existence with Israel, it's because they're disgusted with the way Fatah fought the war. They want better generals, not better negotiators.
It would take a delusional mind to question Israel's hard line under these circumstances. Most commentators say “well, if there was ever any doubt, there isn't anymore: we have no partner for peace.”
Pipes, annoying as he is, says the problem is that the Palestinians never have had to acknowledge defeat. When Sherman marched his men to the sea, his point - by burning every plantation he found along the way - was to demonstrate the expense for the Confederacy of continuing the war. He deprived them of any incentive, any potential reward, any will of continuing the fight. It was awful, but its a point worth remembering. As far as I can tell, wars end either (and mostly) when one part is utterly defeated, or (more rarely) when the parties are sick to death of fighting.
Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.
Comments