morality and strategy

This text from Isaacs is symptomatic of the "circling the wagons" 
mentality now widespread among Israeli and American Jews, signified most
dramatically by Peace Now joining the hawks.

The analysis is not accurate, of course, but it provides a useful glimpse
into the thinking, the rationalization, of the status quo.

And I think that rather than just protest this point of view, though the
protest is valid, we must learn from it.  Learn what?  Learn that when faced 
with talk of war, and blind fury, the reaction is understandably fear and
intransigence.

The anger, frustration and militancy of the Palestinian youth is totally
morally legitimate, but morality is not enough.  What is also required is
a strategy, and that, Isaacs is correct, is sorely lacking.

If the reactive "uprising of stones" and pan-Arab solidarity including the
implicit or explicit threat of war, or even of jihad, against Israel for
as long as it takes, is not replaced with a conscious, pro-active
strategy, then either

a) all the anger will be for nothing, and the movement will be set back,
        or
b) the movement might prevail many years down the road, but at the cost of
        untold bloodshed.

Although Isaacs is clearly wrong in blaming the victim, blaming the
Palestinians for the current situation, he inadvertently does the movement
a favor if he spurs strategic thought.

A mass nonviolent resistance movement comparable to the U.S. civil rights
movement or the anti-apartheid movement could advance the cause of
Palestine, either toward a two-state solution, or even, further down
the road, a single-state solution.

As long as the only perceived choices are diplomacy, played with a losing
hand, or militancy and threats, also played with a losing hand, then the
outcome is one version of defeat or another.

It will take courage and imaginative leadership to alter the strategic
landscape.

Where will it come from?

RH