This week's postings at JfJfP.com

This week, 5th to 11th October, there was only one subject: in the Palestinian and Israeli (and international) press, the news accounts of stabbings by Palestinians and shootings by settlers / rightwingers, border police and IDF. Palestinian houses have also been demolished by the IDF as punishment for the action of sons. As this wave of violence has not yet ended there has been no total count of death, destruction and injuries. At the time of posting, four Israelis and 24 Palestinians had been killed.

Amongst the commentators there was (almost) only one question: is this the third intifada (which gave us the running headline for many articles we reposted). Why does it matter whether or not it gets this label? Presumably because that enhances the political significance of what quite a few commentators see as a random, unco-ordinated spate of stabbings, no different in quality to what has been going on for years.

But first, for those who prefer to read about something else: the imminent resignation of Abu Mazen, drew significant commentary, appreciative if from older analysts:
Abu Mazen – a good man in an impossible situation, Uri Avnery and Last of the possible partners, Uri Savir. He has been credited with keeping the peace in the West Bank for many years – but not easing the oppression of the occupation. Perhaps Gideon Levy should have taken this into account.
‘Only surprise is that a new uprising has taken a decade to occur’

This takes us into the dominant issue of the week – the question of a third intifada, a question which Haaretz asked at the beginning of the week and published articles by five of its best-known columnists, all of which are reposted here. Their introduction and the contributions from Amira Hass and Anshell Pfeffer is here:
Palestinians don’t want another blood-letting

But there’s a generation gap. The young don’t remember the previous blood-letting (or was it worse than what they have experienced?). Younger journalists, and young interviews, have no respect for the elderly leader or the PNA itself:
‘We will be the leaders’

This is more like the spontaneous exuberance of May ’68 in Europe, especially France, only with lethal violence. That was politically crushed but culturally has had a long after-life.

The sporadic and spontaneous quality was highlighted in some pieces:
Keep calm and carry on the pacification, (Amos Harel, one of the five Haaretz articles on the events).
A low simmer with spikes

Which disqualifies the events from intifada status:
Intifadas are strategic‘ This has four articles, the first of which, by Joseph Dana who provides the headline arguing that this rebellion has neither leadership nor strategy. Noam Sheizaf agrees with him – but argues that the tight control over and fragmentation of Palestinian life makes waves of organised, popular protest almost impossible to develop.
This is not a mass, popular protest

This tight control of Palestinian life has produced many of the same expressions which preceded uprisings: “I’m tired” said Rosa Parks whose refusal to sit at the back of the bus sparked the American civil rights movement. And it’s something we hear several Palestinians say.
Not taking any more

While many point out the Israeli government has all the power to quell any resistance there is a question of how wise they would be to use it. From Mazal Mualem:
Weak Netanyahu stuck at crossroads

Even if Palestinians prefer to call it the  ‘3rd Intifada’, to the Israeli government and press it’s just another ‘wave of terror’ from the usual terrorists. But nonetheless someone took it seriously enough for Netanyahu to cancel a visit to Germany:
Bibi cancels trip – to ‘sit on a volcano’

He is under very heavy, very vocal pressure from the right-wing in and outside the Knesset to use all means possible – that is, unlimited military force – to suppress the uprisings. Some of the most right-wing groups demonstrated outside his house last week to demand this.  They were promised
‘Unprecedented measures to ensure the security of settlers’

The new power of a new radical right was noted by Chaim Levinson in one of the Haaretz series:
Far right push for a violent victory

Summing up the problem of both these veteran leaders, Peter Beaumont in The Observer says they have both ‘lost their grip’. Their strategies (if it can be said Netanyahu has one) have demonstrably failed. They are left presiding over uncontrollable violence from people who have not been regarded as security threats and fending off critics and rivals with little effect. His article focuses on the new educated Palestinian youth, including many young women, who have no ideological allegiance to Fatah:
The young are coming out of a romantic notion of a national movement

The difference between now and the past intifadas, points out Jonathan Cook percipiently, is that the settlers are a new factor on the scene. Their role has been much in evidence – flouting the agreement that they will not intrude into Haram Al-Sharif / Temple Mount, a vital factor in the current unrest.
Settlers’ stranglehold creates new scenario

Perhaps most dangerously for the Israeli government, the international Islamic status of Haram al-Sharif, under the official custodianship of the Jordan state, is pulling outside actors into the current turbulence. This is a real and present danger.
Muslim Council of Elders and Jordan call on Israel to respect Haram Al Sharif