CNN.com - U.N. vote backs Arafat - Sep. 19, 2003

CNN.com - U.N. vote backs Arafat - Sep. 19, 2003

How does one parse the Arab/Israeli conflict? On the one hand, the Arabs are living under the yoke of occupation. Their movements restricted, subject to attack by Israeli forces, living in desperate conditions in many ways. Uncitizens of any country, voting members of an authority under siege. The Israelites, surrounded by enemies and besieged by homicide bombers who attack despite the military futility of these efforts.

Isarel wants to get rid of Arafat. They feel, with some justification, that he cannot and will not deal with them in good faith. Its clear that he made sure that Abbas would be unsuccessful. He tanked that whole deal, and you don't have to be a diplomatic genius to see that. Neither the U.S. nor Israel wants to deal with him, and now Israel says they will remove him from the scene themselves. Frankly, I think Israel gets more utility out of making the threat than actually carrying it out. What the utility is is not entirely clear to me considering the round condemnation they are getting from the rest of the world for the idea per the U.N. vote on a resolution decrying such an action. If they were to actually carry out this threat, it would surely drive the Palestinians berserk, and ensure continued attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other terrorists organizations. And getting a more agreeable leader to negotiate with would probably become twice as hard after forcibly removing the old one. Actually carrying out the threat does not seem to serve much purpose.

On the other hand, Arafat has been at this game for a long time. He turned down the deal at Camp David that nearly everyone agrees was the best that was probably ever going to come on the table. I don't believe he will ever stop gaming for advantage at the table over Israel. The Palestinians continue to support him perhaps because he continues to fight the good fight. I think radically different tactics are called for. Strategic non violence. But the Palestinians seem functionally incapable of operating without violence. If I walked a mile in their shoes, I might be the same way. But that merely highlights the importance of their leadership. They need leadership that could move them in a new direction that might go somewhere. The basic bottom line though is that there really is no significant attachement point between the parties for compromise. The Palestinians want a deal that would mean the demise of Israel pretty much any way you slice it. The Israelis won't give in, and they will continue to repress the Palestinans as long as they are under threat. The imperatives driving both sides are immovable object meets irresistable force.