Don't make your enemy's mistakes
Posted by aogMonday, 02 February 2004 at 20:35 TrackBack Ping URL

USS Clueless has a post about the security wall being constructed by Israel and how it’s a symptom of things going wrong for the Palestinians and their associated Caliphascists. It’s a cautiously optimistic post, but there’s one problem with it. At one point he writes

The Palestinians […] decided that the Barak proposal proved that Israel was nearly broken and could be defeated outright, so instead of accepting the sweetened deal and actually living by its terms, they went to war.

Fair enough. The concilatory attitude of the Israelis was interpreted as weakness and exhaustion. One notes that had the Palestinians at that point resorted to non-violent protest the Israelis would have, in fact, collapsed and the Palestinians might well have been able to achieve concessions that would have doomed Israel in the long run. But the Palestinians preferred a violence and ripped defeat from the jaws of victory.

However, USS Clueless writes later on in the same post about how various Palestinian factions and Arab governments are now making offers to Israel which make concessions never before seen, such as this Arab League proposal that gives up on the right of return. Isn’t that the same theory that the Palestinians had, that such concessions are a sign of failing will? Couldn’t it be just a change in tactics, since Arab agreements with Israel have never been binding on the Arab side? Although I agree that the facts on the ground are detoriating for the Caliphascists, even the Israelis aren’t immune to missing opportunities.

A case in point is the recent prisoner swap with Hezbollah. If the Palestinian factions can “recycle” their agents by kidnapping Israelis (as they’ve already announced they will do), it makes the effort a lot cheaper to run, which may go a long way to compensating for the effects of the fence.

In addition, there’s the question of what will Israel do when Hezbollah or Hamas starts lobbing Katyushas over the fence. If I were in charge, the response would be carpet bombings of the area where the weapons were fired, but I just can’t see Israel doing that. But if they don’t, why wouldn’t it continue? Heck, why wouldn’t one of those groups just set off a chemical weapon upwind of Israel, even if that means setting it off in their own territory? There are still a lot of options available to the Palestinians even with the fence, to which I don’t see a response that Israel can (or more commonly is willing) to do.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
RonG Monday, 02 February 2004 at 21:58

Giving up the “Right of Return’ is also giving up on something they never had, in expected return for a tangible Israeli concession. And as always, the Israelis will be held to their part of the bargain and the Arabs will break it as they wish.

End of Discussion