Brad wrote:
>We're talking about peace--a very different thing than justice. And
>to shut out peace on the grounds that it isn't justice is to
>guarantee that you will get neither.
and Seth wrote:
>I agree with all of this. Pragmatism and reasonable compromise are the only
>ways to bring peace and prevent the loss of innocent lives
-Jesus, guys! I realize that peace isn't a bad thing in and of itself, but -this "peace, pragmatism, and reasonable compromise" sounds like the same -horse-shit the capitalists spoon-feed the unions! Might as well hoist the -white flag and get back to work!
Actually, it all depends on pragmatism by whom, the oppressor or the oppressed. I think the PA should have taken the "Half-a-loaf" deal offered because of Palestinian pragmatism, since it would have put them into a better position to agitate for more based on justice over time. In that case, peace would have been a means to achieving justice over time.
But in many cases (including the last intifada), peace was not pragmatic and rebellion was necessary. And while I do not think the current wave of terrorism in Israel is itself very pragmatic as a weapon by the Palestianians, I find all the moralism about "innocent lives" ridiculous given the murder and oppression against the Palestinians day-to-day, all supported by those so-called "innocents" in Israel who voted overwhelmingly for the parties of the unity government perpetuating the oppression of the Occupation.
But then, I supported the terror bombing of Belgrade on the same principle and found the left folks denouncing the deaths of "innocent lives" in that situation just as ridiculous. Oppression is not "peace" and those who preserve the peace of denied freedom are not lovers of peace but lovers of the status quo.
That said, most war and violence does not lead to justice either, since it invariably brings to power not those promoting justice but those who hold the guns, who often have little interest in giving up that power once achieved. So non-violent rebellion at the most militant level is usually the most pragmatic tool whenever it is available. Since it is still available to the Palestinians to a great extent - especially given the pressure on Israel from Europe and even moderately from the US - the escalation of violence by the Palestinians unfortunately is helping Israel far more than the Palestinians themselves.
But they may be gambling on forcing Israel to reoccupy the whole Palestinian Authority and use the international outrage to battle for maximum isolation of Israel. I think it's an unlikely high-stakes gamble but it might be useful to the PLO in removing their quasi-responsibility for suppressing their own people, an untenable position for them at this point. We will see if the threat of putting Israel in that untenable position can yield dividends for the Palestinians.
-- Nathan Newman