me: >>>> since they lack a state, it's very difficult -- if not impossible -- for >>>> Palestinians to articulate in practice what their collective interests, >>>> strategy, and tactics are.<<<<
then David Shemano wrote: >>> This truly makes no logical sense. If the Palestinians don't know where >>> they want to go, how are they going to get there? <<< I answered: >> You may have missed the phrase "in practice." It's quite possible for the >> Palestinians to have and articulate lots of ideas about collective >> interests, strategy, and tactics _in theory_, but without a state it's very >> difficult to put them _into practice_. Instead, we see such events as the >> civil war between Hamas and the PA/Fatah after Hamas won the election or the >> total lack of coordination between Hamas and the nuts who launch rockets >> into Israel from Gaza (sometimes hitting civilians).<< David then replied > You have drifted far from the point. The Al-Jazeera article was a discussion > of the propriety of violent versus nonviolent resistance. I said that the > propriety of a tactic should follow from the goal. You then appeared to be > saying that it is too hard for the Palestinians to figure out their goals, or > how to relate means to goals, which I said makes no logical sense. So, > please explain again why you think it is uniquely difficult for the > Palestinians to match means and ends.< I wasn't responding to the Al-Jazeera article. In any event, when the decision about the actual application of means or methods (kowtowing to Israel as the PA does, or idiotic terrorism as done by some nutty factions in Gaza, or whatever) is not made collectively, i.e., by a unified state, then it is very hard to match collective means and collective ends in practice. Without a state, in addition, collective goals cannot be articulated (in words). Instead, you see what the Israelis sneeringly call the "intrafada." ... David writes: > Before 1948, the various Zionist organizations had very clear articulated > goals, and their methods were directed to achieving the goals. In fact, the > mainstream Zionist organizations successfully built institutions that were > ready to go when the British left in 1948. The fact that the Irgun and the > Stern Gang had their own strategies had no real impact on what the mainstream > organizations were doing.< Unfortunately, while the various Zionist organizations had clearly articulated goals, they were not all the same and they were sometimes in conflict. The Irgun and the Stern Gang were part of this mix rather than being a separate force, and brought their own goals to the table. All of these groups articulated their goals differently _in practice_ too. It's only when the Israeli state was created that there was an organization that could articulate the collective goals of the Israeli Jewish people both in theory (Parliamentary laws, etc.) and in practice (allowing the settlers to grab more and more land, etc.) The collective goals of the Israeli Jewish people can change due to elections, whereas for the Palestinians, these goals could not change unless the various parts of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and refugee camps all changed in step (and in the same direction). It's true that the Zionists were more unified before the British left than the Palestinians have been in recent decades. While the British colonialists' application of divide and conquer strategy mostly involved setting the Jews against the Palestinians and vice-versa (making contradictory promises to different groups, etc.), the Zionist colonialists used this strategy to split the Palestinians, for example, at one stage supporting Hamas to undermine the PLO's power. Nowadays, the divide and conquer strategy is pretty explicit: keep Hamas and the PA fighting with each other (so that real peace talks can be avoided, etc.), while using collective punishment of Gaza to try to divide Hamas from the people they rule. This divide and conquer strategy is likely a major reason why it is more "difficult for the Palestinians to match means and ends" than for the pre-Israel Zionists. In addition, while the British overlords (even the anti-Jewish bigots) treated the Israeli Jews as Europeans, the dominant attitude in Israel seems to be be that Palestinians are like cockroaches. (Or least it's that way under Likud, which has been running the show for so long that it's hard to remember other attitudes. But then again, Golda Meir denied the existence of a Palestine.) That lack of sympathy creates greater difficulties for the Palestinians than those faced by the pre-Israel Zionists. Finally, the UK at the time of Israeli independence represented a declining and tired empire that had lost a lot of people and other resources in two World Wars and had lots of places to try to hold onto (India, Kenya, etc.) In contrast, Israel is a confident power with military supremacy in the air, on the sea, and on land (though not in offensives against Hezbollah) and many fewer targets for the application of that power. -- Jim Devine / "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- Karl, paraphrasing Dante. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
