Previously, Tel Aviv refused to deal with the PLO and aided Hamas. So it appears Tel Aviv hasn't learned.
But then, perhaps some such consideration as those expressed by Dwayne Monroe and Chris Doss in re Chechnya may be on Tel Aviv's mind. Coupled with some such notion -- much more relevant than that pertaining to the Roma -- that Arab culture is intolerant, will not be satisfied with the concessions that Tel Aviv is prepared to give, etc. At least Roma beggars can be pacified by hand-outs!
====================
Sorry, but by making a linkage between styles of thinking in Moscow and Tel Aviv, and suggesting that statements made by Chris and myself (and I think we can fairly include Peter Lavelle too - though you didn't mention him) are supportive of violence as the only response to terrorism you are walking down the wrong road.
In spite of our habit of seeing situations that are described using the same words ("terrorism", for example) as being identical there are indeed unique situations in the world. Once you look below surface resemblances the details are actually very different.
Is the Israeli/Palestinian situation equivalent to the Moscow/Chechnya conflict? And, should our reactions to events in these different locations be precisely the same?
Consider.
Israel, in living memory, seized territory and took brutal steps to subjugate the people inhabiting it. The resistance that has developed in the years since is inevitable - even in its terribleness.
There is a clear path ahead for Israel to remove, via negotiation, the threat of terrorist action - it involves abandoning vainglorious dreams of a "Greater Israel" and ceasing the program of assassination, mass punishment and humiliation it has conducted against the Palestinians.
How, precisely, does this relate to Moscow's dilemma?
But there's more to chew on...
Peter Lavelle added this interesting assessment to the discussion yesterday:
**Over 99% of Chechens are open to a political settlement with the Kremlin. The tragedy of course is that the Kremlin focuses on the one percent who isn’t interested. The one percent gives the security forces a reason to continue the conflict there as a business venture. That is just fine with the terrorists there as well – they are in business too.
Politics, ideology, and religion are not the most pressing problems in Chechnya – the problem is how to finally destroy the “business model” that is at the heart of the Chechen crisis that benefits few at the expense of the many. This is Putin’s greatest challenge.**
for full, see
<http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20040830/019622.html
>
...
So now we learn of another layer of complexity and difference which I was unaware of until Peter mentioned it - terrorism and counter terrorism as a business venture with innocents used as bloody investment instruments.
This brings into sharper focus something Putin said during his televised statement of a few days ago:
He called for Russians to mobilize against what he said was the "common danger" of terrorism. Measures would be taken, Putin promised, to overhaul the law enforcement organs, which he acknowledged had been infected by corruption, and tighten borders.
"We are obliged to create a much more effective security system and to demand action from our law enforcement organs that would be adequate to the level and scale of the new threats," he said.
[...]
full -
>
...
To reverse the question I asked earlier, how, precisely does any of this relate to Tel Aviv's situation which, it seems to me, is brought about by quite different circumstances?
The two situations are not flawless mirrors of each other. It is not wrong to have different reactions and analyses. You needn't suggest (as you did at the end of your post) that people have neo-con or liberal-style, quasi-imperialist sympathies because they do not state standard lefty positions on Chechnya.
Sometimes, the standard positions are just wrong.
.d.