SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (72241)2/7/2003 8:02:52 PM
From: Jacob Snyder  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
<who is the Palestinian side?>

Yes, you're right, that's a problem. Until the failure at Taba, Arafat could legitimately claim to represent his nation. If he had accepted the final Israeli offer then, he probably could have enforced it. Some Palestinian groups would have rejected it, and some non-Palestinians would have tried to exploit those divisions to keep the Intifada going, but Arafat could (probably) have crushed that dissent. That opportunity is gone, now; his authority is much weaker. As you say, the Occupied Territories have been shattered politically, and there is no Authority who can speak for all of them, or enforce anything that is agreed to. Bosnia, Somalia, the West Bank.

Perhaps, if they are faced with the threat of expulsion, they will regroup around Arafat. And perhaps Arafat will yield on the Right Of Return (the deal-breaker at Taba). That's the only road to peace I see, and I agree it's a long shot.

More likely, Hamas will continue to grow in power, the Intifada will continue, Americans will gradually come to agree with Israel that the Palestinian organizations are equivalent to Al Queda. Eventually, much or all of the Palestinian population is forced into Jordan. Unfortunately, this has several further consequences:
1. many years more of war.
2. less cooperation from Muslim nations, with the U.S. WarOnTerrorism.