Qurei warns of possible ‘armed resistance’ if talks fail
Threat of another intifada enters the ‘peacetalks’. It sounds like, once again, the PA is starting to overplay their hand.
Threat of another intifada enters the ‘peacetalks’. It sounds like, once again, the PA is starting to overplay their hand.
3 comments
1 | Samson Tue, Oct 19, 2010 11:07:04pm |
"...Qurei, 73, who is better known by his nom de guerre Abu Ala, said that the peace talks, diplomatic efforts and “all forms of resistance” should be among the Palestinian negotiators’ options.
“All options are open to us,” he declared. “Negotiations, popular activities, sit-in strikes, civil disobedience or armed resistance."
I've never seen or heard of the Palestinians using anything other than negotiations, which they then abandon when they don't get everything they want, or violence. The BDS movement and other (mostly) non-violent attempts to demonize and isolate Israel are largely coming from the Palestinians far-left friends rather than the Palestinians themselves, if it matters.
Negotiations are about to come to an end once again, so I'm expecting violence. Evidently, I'm not the only one:
[Link: www.hudson-ny.org...]
2 | Bob Levin Wed, Oct 20, 2010 2:39:05am |
re: #1 Samson
I see your point, but it's not a given. Advanced military technology has improved in the last five years, to the point where drones can target the leaders of any given country. Arafat was perfectly happy sending children to the front lines, while he himself was feeling securely hidden away.
But if I were Israel, I'd figure out a way to make Abbas the Qurei my first targets. I notice a pattern of the leaders of such groups backing away from calls to violence when they themselves are no longer insulated from their own devices.
The question is--can the PA, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria coordinate an attack? If that's the plan, they've sure as heck lost the element of surprise. There is no way the PA can go it alone.
And then there is the question of how long the war is allowed to last. Israel understands that they have to fight quickly. If Israel suffers any major damage, then that will prolong the war. That is, the world will dawdle a little bit longer. Israel now has many technological and economic ties to a variety of countries, not just the US. Even the Saudis are investing in Israel.
Although public political pronouncements have remained fairly consistent, there has been just enough change to make we wonder--behind closed doors, perhaps the PA is now seen as a bigger pain in the behind.
I guess I'm saying that there is a possibility that things are no longer the way they were. Possibly.
3 | Samson Wed, Oct 20, 2010 8:49:12am |
Your point is well taken - nations that plan on fighting the last war instead of the next war (e.g., France in WWII) do so at great risk, and the situation in the middle east continues to evolve. Israel has not been immune from this type of mistake in the past, although I think the military has had numerous opportunities over the past few years to reassess its positions and strategies (e.g., Gaza). The "intifadas" did nothing but harm the Palestinians and their cause, but the PA does not have a history of seeking creative or positive solutions and have little else to offer their people. Accordingly, I think low-level violence rather than all out war is the likely outcome of the failing "peace process" unless, of course, the Iranians and their proxies (e.g., Hezbullah) decide that its time to try out their new missiles and other weapons. In any case, the best policy for Israel is to hope for the best and prepare for the worst.