Whatever the reason, there does appear to be another current, a growing one, that (a) does not wish to give up the settlements required by a two state solution and (b) wish, puzzling to me, to maintain an occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.
I don't see why it's so puzzling for you John... The Israelis are not about to grant independence and sovereignty to a PA entity that is intent on continuing aggression against them.
The PA boundaries, regardless of whether Arafat accepted them or not, were COMPLETELY AUTONOMOUS. There were no Israeli forces occupying any declared PA territories before the latest "intifada". In fact, the Israelis were providing weapons and training to the Palestinian Police.a
So they had a choice... continue negotiating with the Israelis for the remainder of the 1967 territories, or reopen hostilities, but this time base upon a "state to state" status.. The PA political entity against Israel. And since there were no Israeli troops in the PA boundaries, they had to strike OUTSIDE of their own territory in order to kill Israelis..
Since any government of a state is responsible for the actions of extremists permitted to operate within it political boundaries, it doesn't matter if it was HAMAS or some other group.. Arafat was responsible for arresting the perpetrators and not assisting them.
That's called state on state AGGRESSION, John..... Arafat not only aided and abetted attacks by HAMAS and PFLP, it's plain that he also acted at the behest of Iran and Iraq, using the Palestinian territory to carry out a "war by proxy" on behalf of those two nations.
So why it's "puzzling" for you to understand why the Israelis felt compelled to RE-ENTER the PA and dismantle the military infrastructure Arafat had amassed is somewhat "puzzling" to me.. For most people who bother to understand the issues, it's pretty clear. The major points are pretty simple:
1.)Arafat was given control over a political entity called the PA, newly established AFTER Jordan disclaimed the West Bank.
The PA consisted primarily of the portions of the West Bank containing the majority of the Palestinian population.
2.) Arafat is not satisfied with the amount of land he is provided and desires the entire territory of the West Bank and removal of Jewish settlements. Israel "rejects" (in essence)his demands pending further proof that Arafat is able to maintain security within the PA and will take action against HAMAS and PFLP. Arafat "arrests" many leaders only to later release them.
3.) Arafat uses Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount as a casus belli for launching his Intifada because, thus permitting DIRECT action against Israel over the status of Jerusalem. But virtue of this action, he threw away all the "confidence building" that would have eventually led to the Palestinians controlling more of the land on the West Bank, and instead chose the path of state sponsored violence and terrorism.
4). So rather than choosing a path of long term passive and peaceful resistance (ala Ghandi) to perceived Israeli "delays" that would have engendered far more sympathy from the international community and embarrassed Israeli leadership into complying with PA demands for more territory, he resorted to violence and encouraging suicide bombers (as evidenced by the Iranian shipments of two tons of plastic explosives which Israel intercepted).
5.) Thus, in the face of such direct hostility by Arafat and suicide attacks against civilians, as well as NO indication that Arafat was willing to settle for a non-militarized PA that would take into account JUSTIFIED Israeli security concerns, Israel re-occupied portions of the PA in order to eradicate terrorist infrastructure and to seize intelligence documents.
And that's where it stands now... Open conflict between two POLITICAL ENTITIES. Arafat has dragged his people into a war with Israel and only when the Palestinian people get tired of being at war will there be some kind of peace.
Arafat screwed his people over.. He promised them a quick victory and a state "born in blood", but instead has led them to re-occupation by Israel. Instead of playing a Palestinian "Ghandi" and intiating tactics that left his government "blameless" while creating great embarrassment to the Israeli government, he chose a path of direct conflict that only fed the political strength of the Israeli right and led to Sharon's government.
And now.. the terrorist "tigers" he thought he could control and "ride" to ultimate power over the entire West Bank and Gaza, are now prepared to swallow him and alter the course of the Palestinian cause for some time to come. And more Palestinians and Israelis will have to needlessly die because he chose war over peace.
Hope that helps clarify the picture a bit John.. Let me know if you're still "puzzled"..
Hawk |
