You need to view Hamaas more like the IRA. They are not in it for the
money. Arafat is afraid of them and does not control them. Israel is afraid
of them and cannot control them.
Arab nations support the Palestinian cause a little to quiet
pro-Palestinian elements in their countries.
On Mon, 30 Sep 2002 14:25:17 -0700 Harry Pollard <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
writes:
> Karen,
>
> As always good commentary.
>
> We should identify some players.
>
> "The Official
Palestinians" - led by Arafat.
>
> "Hamas "- I've called them
the Mafia, implacably hostile to Israel,
> a state
> within a
state, the bestower of goodies on the population - goodies
> that
> are almost certainly provided by the US. You'll recall that the
> Mafia in
> the US was where poor people in the urban ghettos
would go for help
> - along
> with the church.
>
> There are other terrorist groups (or freedom fighters) - the
Islamic
> Jihad
> and suchlike, but Hamas seems to be the
instigator of suicide
> bombing. They
> appear to be
unaffected by what Arafat does. (I would not be
> surprised if
> Arafat is more terrified by Hamas than by the Israelis.
>
> "The Arab Nations" - have been quite open in the past about their
> intention
> of driving the Israelis into the sea, though now
they are a teensy
> little
> bit more circumspect. However,
their maps don't show Israel and they
> have
> never
recognized Palestine as an individual state (and won't until
> Israel
> is gone).
>
> However, the Arab nations give very
little to help the Palestinians
> - about
> 2% of the subsidy
that keeps the state on welfare. The Saudis give
> about
>
$1.8 million - which shows how little the rest give. (The US gives
>
$84
> million.)
>
> "Jordan" - there is always someone
off-stage ready to take front and
> center.
>
> "The
Israelis"
>
> The immovable object - the solid mass - is
Israel. The Jews are not
> going
> to leave. They have always
been in Palestine that for centuries
> (millennia
> ?) was
composed of Jews and Arabs. The Jews always wanted a
> homeland. The
> British promised them one back in WWI.
>
> (Keith, for
the life of me I can't remember the name of the
> agreement, or
> letter of intent, or whatever. I think it began with H - the name
of
> a
> politician. Know what my feeble mind is searching
for?)
>
> The Brits didn't want to offend the Arabs, so nothing
much happened
> until
> after WWII. Then, we will recall the
Brits were unwilling to
> establish a
> Jewish homeland. The
official attitude, which might have been true,
> was
> that
they feared the Arabs by the millions would kill all the Jews
> and
the
> Brits would be blamed.
>
> But, bombings and
shootings, plus shiploads of immigrants,
> eventually
>
changed their minds. Red faces accompanied the pictures of the Royal
> Navy
> turning back ships full of women and
children.
>
> This led to the spectacle of five Arab armies
launching the attack
> that
> would destroy Israel and kill
all the Jews. It failed. Another five
> armies
> attacked
later, again failing.
>
> The Jews will not go quietly into the
good night.
>
> Yet, apparently they must or, at the very
least, hide behind a wall
>
> These are the major characters in
the play.
>
> I would suggest that the point of attack in this
scenario is the
> money.
>
> Just as the Saudis are
welfare cases, so are the Palestinians.
> Internal
>
welfare for the Saudis is comparable to external welfare for the
> Palestinians. The money from UNRWA should perhaps be directed to
the
>
> official Palestinian state - Jordan (itself a
manufactured entity
> like
> Israel). Let the Jordanians be
the manager of the money.
>
> Or, it would be interesting if
every time a suicide bomb went off in
> Israel
> $5 million
was deducted from the UNRWA stipend. It should be noted
> that
> since the beginning '90's the Palestinians are a kind of official
> state.
> Almost 98% of Palestinians have been part of
this.
>
> The Jews can hardly be blamed for what is happening
there. They have
> the go
> ahead to make themselves a state.
They get the money from outside.
> They
> could become
prosperous with a little attention directed to their
> welfare
> rather than Israel.
>
> Arafat was given the green
light to form a 40,000 strong police
> force. Can
> it not be
used to break up Hamas?
>
> Well, Arafat has done a little, but
not much. So, the money (or its
> withdrawal) might be an incentive
to move things forward.
>
> If that were attempted, I can hear
"All Things Considered", and
> suchlike,
> waxing apoplectic
with rage at this attack on women, and children,
> and the
>
poor, and the helpless. But, if it works, it might reduce the
>
attacks on
> women, and children, and the poor, and the
helpless.
>
> If anything can.
>
> Oops! I've just
got Lawry's post. Whenever I am called ignorant, I
> smell
>
propaganda. I'll read it more carefully in a while, but note how
>
"the mass
> of the Palestinians" is melded into the antics of the
leaders.
>
> That may be a universal problem - thinking that
national policies
> are the
> same as the wishes of the
people.
>
> Meantime we will both hope the brick wall is
crumbling.
>
> Harry
>
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Karen wrote:
>
> >HP wrote asking BW:
>
>Are you suggesting the suicide bombers are a war against Sharon?
>
>These are people whose open intent is to sweep Israel into the sea.
> People
> >to whom the Arabs have never given a homeland
because Israel is
> where they
> >will be when the Jews are
all killed.
> >We are in error to personalize things. Sharon isn't
the problem, no
> matter
> >the convenience it provides
newsmen and politicians to emphasize
> >individuals.
>
>
> >Harry, I will not challenge your statement at length, that
we are
> in error
> >to personalize things, but it sounds
very much like history being
> understood
> >by science:
here is a solid mass that will not budge and over here
> is a
>
>single entity that has no affect on it and cannot possibly make the
> solid
> >mass move, dissolve or change in any way.
>
>
> >This comes back to the old question of do men as
individuals affect
> history,
> >or is history such a solid
mass that individuals are pulled along
> by it but
> >never
able to drive history a certain way?
> >
> >Of course, we
all agree that individuals matter in their local,
> regional
and
> >now global histories. Sharon is certainly part of the
problem. He
> gives
> >the wall or solid mass of
desperate Islamic hate a target on the
> world event
>
>stage, just as Arafat is a target for the global defenders of
>
Israel.
> >Identifying the I - P problem as an unmovable,
impenetrable object
> (open
> >intent to sweep Israel out to
the sea) only contributes to the
> problem, it
> >makes it
seem impossible to change, just as Tom Walker wrote re:
> Emery
Roe's
> >Analytical Tip opinion that environmentalists and
economists can
> make doing
> >anything about global warming
or global poverty seem too large a
> problem to
> >deal with
by individuals or individual states.
> >
> >When we
condense historical events down to a formula to understand
> it,
we
> >often miss the mythos that is involved. Your statement
is
> practical, using
> >logos, and reflects (what I think
is) your intellectual
> training/preference,
> >but both
mythos and logos are involved in life and the unfolding
> drama
of
> >mankind.
> >
> >If the right CEO can make
or break a corporation, if one professor
> and not
>
>another can attract more students to a department, if a single
>
talented
> >researcher can make the difference in a breakthrough in
medical
> science, if
> >one lawyer can make a jury see the
evidence in a different way,
> then why
> >should we not
blame Sharon and Arafat for contributing to this
> political
>
>problem? I see the I - P issue as a crumbling brick wall, not a
> solid one,
> >and I am focused on the crack in my line of
sight that I can do
> something
> >about. -
Karen
>
>
> ******************************
> Harry
Pollard
> Henry George School of LA
> Box 655
>
Tujunga CA 91042
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tel: (818) 352-4141
> Fax: (818) 353-2242
>
*******************************
>
>
