> he can't stop the violence (so we shouldn't > deal with him).>
First of all the Palestinian authority can, at best, stop one side of the violence. > Either he can stop the violence, and won't (so we > shouldn't deal with him) If the PA could stop the violence and hasn't, then dealing with them or not is a matter of policy. === Remember, the Likud (and especially Sharon) have pretty much said land-for-peace is a fool's bargain. Keep the land and coerce security. ---- >From the Palestinian perspective if you stop the violence then the Israelis get what they want, security, and they already have the land, so they stall negotiations indefinitely. If you continue the violence then the indication is that Israel, despite its public policy will occasionally negotiate. Furthermore, not to fight in the face of oppression is shameful. It would be idiotic of the PA to "return to baracks," let alone "stack arms," without iron-clad commitments from the Sharon adminstration on a basline for talks, a *reasonable* standard for the state of Israeli-Palestinian security during the talks, and clear milestones for reasonable progress. """"" Mennonites, Quakers, and some scarce Arab peaceniks have lobbied the PLO to at least tactically adopt Ghandi style non-violent resistance. They have not exactly dismissed the techniques as ineffective. However, the lobyists have reported that many leaders have trouble even understanding the concept. More important, those who do understand the concept dismiss it as shameful weakness in the face of extreme provocation. """"""
