[Chairman_December_19th_Society]

Not taken as a lecuture sweets.....I have a desire to edumicate myself on this issue.

Bit - agreed on your rant on the PA/PLO.

But I view it as part of a bigger context. Note the violence - which was there previously, I'll concede - ratcheted up significantly beginning on October 7. Arafat still has as his goal the destruction of Israel and the establishment of a Palestinian State roughly equating to the borders of the former British mandate.

Someone else (Saddam? The Evil One?) has been having conversations - quite probably through intermediaries - during our assault on Afgoneistan with Arafat. I don't buy that the increase in violence in that area was a coincidence.

Viewing things in the larger perspective, the proper response becomes extremely tricky. We are trying very hard to both get Israel to allow itself, essentially, to be a punching bag and not respond, while not responding with force ourselves either.

The proximate reason is obvious - we do not want to force a split in the Arab countries that are currently backing our effort. The converse - the execution of such a split - is in our enemy's best interest, of course. Which is precisely why I don't believe all of this is a coinkydink.

But to scope it out into an even larger context - why do we need to worry about Arab alliances at all?

Well - we're back to the last Administration. UOx42. Once again. All things bad today seem to go back, somehow, someway, to that son of a b.

Due to the atrophy he allowed in our military capability, we are not in a position to deal with more than a limited conflagration in that region of the world, while still meeting strategic demands elsewhere - in particular, Korea. Moreover, because of our current situation - something the Administration is trying to fix, but will take time (time they are trying to buy with this strategy) - we need to call on the help of others; if not to assist at least to stay out of the way.

The violence in the West Bank and Gaza is a direct challenge to our approach and strategy in the mid-east. Unfortunately, the time to fish or cut bait is very near at hand.

</rant>

[Neets]

Ok, I have bookmarked yesterday and today's thread and will go back at the end of the day, and try to figure out what I have learned.

[Bitwhacker]

Well, Arafat's last Intifatah was '87. The violence ratcheted up this time at exactly the time when Barak caved to Arafat during the 'Legacy' talks. If he had gone for the deal, he knows he would have been assassinated upon his return to the Middle East.

They do not view negotiations as a means to sue for peace; they view it as a means of incremental victory. Inch by inch, foot by foot, until they get it all.

BTW, also in re 'Palestinian', just as the Taliban is not Afghani, so Arafat is not 'Palestinian'. He was born in Egypt.

Arafat was resurrected by the doves of Israel, thinking that if they just give him what he wants, he would just drop the violence and play nice.

But the 800-pound gorilla in the room that nobody wants to talk about is the fact that the PLO, which is very much alive in the PA, is dedicated to the destruction of no just Israel but all Jews. They haven't renounced that, they don't intend to, and until they get a leader who is not a terrorist thug the Palestinians will never have a shot at real peace.

What's different now is that the game has escalated, while Arafat is playing as if UOx42 is still in office winking at the antics. It is very dangerous now; Arafat goes over the line a few more times (or even once more) and it will mean total conflict.

(Also, I am very surprised that China has not taken advantage of our distraction, vis-a-vis Taiwan...)

[lepton]

Due to the atrophy he allowed in our military capability, we are not in a position to deal with more than a limited conflagration in that region of the world, while still meeting strategic demands elsewhere

Yes. In order to prosecute this limited engagement, we have ahd to move continental defense assets, such as AWACS away and have NATO augment our shore defenses. Why don't we have enough assets to do both ourselves?