On Wed, 27 Mar 2002, Trent Shipley wrote: > Fortunately, the claim that the Palestinans have no central body competent to > engage in land-for-peace negotiations because the Palestinian activists are > just factions of terrorist cliques and their various supporters of various > degrees of fanaticsm *does not need to be true*. The current Israeli regime > is in an excellent postion to characterize the situation thusly, and by PR > and mobilization of conservative Christian and Jewish lobbies in the US, > *impose* the questionable view of Arabs (in this case Palestinians) as > fundamentally fanatical, factionalized, terrorists who are incapable of > collective self-control. > > It is really very ironic and amusing when you think about it...unless you > happen to be Arab.
Educate me, then. Suppose Arafat signs a deal with Israel: true peace and normalized relations in exchange for, say, half of the occupied territories, complete with a plan for sharing administration and security for the holy sites of Jerusalem, water supplies, etc., and with Palestine getting to have its capital in a significant part of Jerusalem. In your opinion can Arafat actually deliver peace? Maybe not total peace right away, say, but an elimination of routine acts of terror within five years or so? And is it not the case that the government media and educational institutions under Arafat's control preach the eradication of Jews from the hold land? Is he actively working with the influential elements of his people to come up with better strategies for handling the situation? Or is "better" so much in the eye of the beholder that whatever Arafat's doing represents Palestine's best strategy? Marvin Long Austin, Texas
