I read Falk as one long apology for Arafat, explaining how he had no choice, he couldn't take the deal because it was only for 22% of Palestine, the Israelis should have offered him 50% and half the IDF, he had to go to terrorism, except it isn't really terrorism because the Palestinians are weak and therefore they have no other military options, and don't an occupied people have the right to "self-help" with katyushas and C4 anyway? As Palestinian apologists prefer, there is no historical context with regard to Israel and its Arab neighbors or the previous five wars; everything is strong bad Israel vs. weak oppressed Palestinians. Also the usual arguments about why Palestinians can't be committing terrorism because they are weak and the cause is good. He also lends support to absurd arguments that the Palestinians are just responding to Israel, which are total bs. Not only did Arafat sign 13 cease-fires and break them, Israel tried several long unilateral cease-fires, the longest in June 2001, which were not reciprocated.
Falk tries to provide a context for Arafat's actions, which provide an interpretation. That context is the last decade or so, read as a text within a dominance-subordinate relationship.
I guess you are talking about Arafat vis-a-vis the Israelis and Americans. There is also the relationship of Arafat vis-a-vis the Islamists, and Arafat vis-a-vis his patrons in Saudi Arabia and Egypt and lately, Iran. But Falk omits these as they don't paint as sympathetic a picture. Falk also omits all historical context that doesn't suit his arguments, such as a history of deals that Arafat has signed with the Israelis and how each side carried (or failed to carry out) its obligations. Arafat's abundant history as a terrorist is also swept away. The general implication is that it's Israel's fault for not just giving him half the country and full sovereignty on trust. Needless to say, I think such a course would have been suicidal. Frankly, I think it's Falk's interpretation of Arafat that removes him from context.
As I've said repeatedly, I think it's a term that is being misused here
John, I have a simple definition: attempting to achieve political ends by creating terror in a civilian population. A campaign of bombing random civilians certainly qualifies by this definition. If you have a different definition, please give it.
My answer to all the charges of Israeli state terrorism is that the Israelis are not attempting to gain political ends by simply terrorizing the Palestinians, they are attempting to protect themselves by degrading the capacity of the terrorist militias (abundant evidence is coming out of this campaign to show that Arafat's PA was fully joined with the Islamists in the terror campaign). If the militias kept themselves apart from the population centers, the population centers would not have been attacked. Unfortunately they do not, so they were of necessity part of the attack. Had the Israelis wanted to just terrorize the Palestinians, they had easy means; they could have bombed all the towns indiscrimimnately at no risk to themselves. Instead, they went in house-to-house. |
