>to put it schematically, the large organization/big resources theory is
>consistent with the notion that a decisive counterattack will return things
>to normal and allow foreign policy continuity. the small
>organization/modest resources idea makes the possibility of a decisive
>counterattack less likely, and thus makes foreign policy continuity more
>uncertain. to put it bluntly, could 'terrorism pay', and eventually result
>in a change in the US stance towards the Palestinians?
>re
Theoretically, I agree. Gut? I think we won't give a crap about legitimation. We'll feel justified in attacking small org/modest resources outfit. I am not so sure an elite wants thing back to normal.
Israel is the rumor of the day.
kelley