Reply #26: Brom in Feb 2003

[Gimel]

International Forces in an Israeli-Palestinian Agreement
Shlomo Brom

Already in the first stages of the violent Israeli-Palestinian conflict that erupted in September 2000, the Israeli defense establishment concluded that the violence was a premeditated strategic move by the Palestinian leadership with the aim of forcing Israel to surrender what it had been unwilling to concede within the framework of political negotiations.

According to this reading, even though the Palestinians are weaker than Israel from a military point of view, they have two principal objectives in using violence to manipulate the course of events to their advantage. The first relies on their perception of Israel's "softness," that is, on the Israeli public's inability to withstand significant losses (the model of the war in southern Lebanon). The second intends to force the "internationalization" of the conflict, that is, the creation of a situation requiring the international community to intervene and impose a solution (the Balkan model). Leaving aside the question - open to debate - whether the outburst and continuation of Palestinian violence was in fact based on calculated, strategic thinking, it is now possible to state that after almost two and a half years of the Intifada, these two scenarios have not proceeded according to plan. The Israeli public has displayed steady endurance, and there has been no internationalization along the lines of what the Palestinians envisioned would bring them closer to their goals. Until now international intervention has been limited, engaged mainly in mediating between the two sides to end the violence and renew the political process.
http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v5n4p4Bro.html

The Palestinian Intifada was premeditated (if there is any doubt remaining). Their objectives were not acheived. The PA influence is declining, due to their loss of respect.