Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> >And pray tell, what is the "strategic intentionality" of the IDF attacking
> >the PA HQ and not that of HAMAS? What is the logic behind the action?
> >
> >Naji
> >
>
> The thought is that Sharon prefers Hamas, which wants war, to Arafat, who
> wants peace. If you get rid of the guys who want peace, you can happily make
> war against the enemies who'd rather fight than switch. There is no
> non-circumstantial evidence in favor of this hypothesis, but the
> circumstantial evidence is moderately compelling. jks
>
And (regardless of how compelling the argument is or is not for "intentionality") notice that friends of palestine can focus on that evidence as damning in its own right. That is, we don't really have to claim we know hidden intentions to claim fairly easily that that circumstantial evidence has the _objective_ effect of creating the condition Justin describes. One problem with conspiracy theories is that they are inherently unprincipled: that is, I take a principled argument to be of the form, what "you" (they, we) have done only makes sense in terms of Principle A, and Principle A is vicious. Then the argument is about the meaning of public actions, not about the hidden intentions behind them. Red-baiting expresses the very essence of conspiracy theory.
Carrol