Thanks for the article; it was interesting. That is the first article I've seen that posits that the Young Guard started the intifada in opposition to the Old Guard. I'm not sure I buy it; from the forces deployed, the Old Guard hopped onto the bandwagon soon enough.
There are also some internal contradictions in the article:
With regard to the peace process, the Young Guard shares with the Old Guard the same goals and aspirations for an independent state, to live in peace side by side with the state of Israel, with Arab East Jerusalem as its capital, and with a just solution to the refugee problem. In today's highly inflamed environment, most members of the Young Guard tend to advocate hawkish position. But this is probably a reflection of the heightened threat perception generated by the daily bloodshed. Indeed, some members of the group, such as Sari Nusseibeh, the president of al Quds University and Arafat's representative in East Jerusalem, advocate very moderate views and indeed oppose the resort by the Young Guard to arms.
For now however, the Young Guard is strongly opposed to any cease-fire agreement that would entail a crackdown on nationalist or Islamist activists. Indeed, it has expressed public opposition to both, the Mitchell Report and the Tenet Plan. In fact, it wants Arafat to "come out of the closet," by publicly endorsing its intifada goals and methods and by ordering all PA security forces to join the armed confrontations. In its eyes, this would be the ultimate test of credibility.
Here he says the Young Guard really has moderate aims, i.e. Palestine besides Israel, yet it has always supported the Islamicists and worked with them. That's contradictory; you can't work with the Islamicists while having such different goals from them. The Islamicist's goal is Palestine instead of Israel, and they have never tried to hide it. |
