As you know.

Carrots and sticks must be provided to both sides. They must see that there are rewards for coming to a peaceful settlement, just as was the case with Israel and Egypt.

Ok. You're in charge of getting the Arab countries to withdraw support for the terrorists? :)

Sure, that's the way to do it. But Israel *did* attempt a peaceful settlement, offered to meet most, if not all, of the demands. So... Its not that simple.

Right now, there's no outside pressure on the PLO to play fair, and to behave.

Nor does there look to be any. So, yes, its an answer, but one that's not realistic given the current situation and recent history.

And you might note - Egypt came to their understanding with Israel after being soundly trounced.

sticking with them even in the face of suicide bombings and inflamitory rhetoric because it's the right thing to do for Israel's sake.

How many of your family will you sacrifice for the greater good, before you say "screw it, lets take the sonsabitches out"? that's what you're suggesting as the "simple" answer - the Israelis smile and have their civillians slaughtered.

(that happened a few years back with other Jews, and it didn't work out well, either).

But its a much more sensible thing to do than muddle along the same path with the same tired rhetoric while hundreds or thousands more die. It's clear, it's simple, and it's what has to happen eventually.

But you're dealing with people who *are not looking to be sensible*. That's the massive failure with your "simple" solution. Bluke is a bit strident, but he does have pretty much the PLO's intent down. No Israel. Period.

How do you "negotiate" with someone like that?

1. The people doing the bombings of Israelies aren't the PA police and political leaders that Israel is targeting with their preemptive attacks/assasinations/missile attacks/whatever you want to call them. The suicide bombers are incited by and controlled by extremists who aren't under Arafat's control. Israel's actions are counterproductive to its own interests.

I'll presume you're in the same boat as me, and don't know that for certain, as I don't know for certain that's bullshit. :) But its my suspicion. Arafat's *got* control of lots of things. He's the "leader".

I've been impressed with what I know of Israel intelligence. I'm not positive they've been 100% correct.. but from what I've seen, I'll take their word that these leaders they're taking out are exactly that. (Granted, that's a SWAG on my part).

2. The Israelies can't "win" a military conflict with the Palestinians, and neither can the Palestinians with the Israelies.

They didn't win at the bargaining table either. Sometimes it takes more.

I can't find my copy of [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0453005802/qid=999149256/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/002-1655860-7507259|Not For Glory]. But [link|http://www.winternet.com/~joelr/|Rosenberg] has a incredibly good quote, I'll have to try and paraphrase..

"You cannot teach them that they cannot spit in your face.
You cannot teach them not to throw a bomb and burn your sister and her unborn baby.
You cannot teach them any of those things.

However, you CAN teach them that those actions are VERY UNSAFE".

And I think that sums up the Israeli attitude remarkably. (Its a sci-fi book about the survivors of Israel)

So no, its really not that simple. the Palestinians are *not* willing to bargain, not yet.

The Arab countries that *are* bargaining with Israel... did so with the imminent threat of the IDF.

Its far more complicated than saying "Ok, back to the table AGAIN.."..

When I said "How" - part of that implied was "What are you going to do differently?"

And that's what I don't have a clue how to do it. But so far I'd say that in *my* opinion, the Israelis have been remarkable restrained. (Heard on NRP, some palestinians were relating their attack by IDF attack helicopters (after they were blasting at an Army base with belt-fed heavy machine guns) that it was "unfair" and "disproportionate".. Well, shit. somebody shoots weaponry at me, (or think of it firing at you and your family) - what is the "proportionate" response? This was an exact quote that staggered me: "we only have kalishnikovs... they've got helicopters!")

(then don't SHOOT at them. If you Do, that's darwinism at work).

Addison

There is some validity to your view. But I believe it's wrong in general, but I don't think we're going to convince each other. :-)

Which "view"?

* What I observe to be the Israeli mindset.
* My likely actions in a similar situation
* My view on the PLO's motivation and history.
* Specific details of how I understand the IDF to work.
* Questions as to how it could be fixed.

Which of those is wrong?

Its rather rude to lump all that together with "you're wrong, but I'm not going to even tell you what you're wrong about or why".

If you think so, say about what.

And you might note - Egypt came to their understanding with Israel after being soundly trounced.

Not in 1973 they weren't.

No, you're right, they weren't AS soundly trounced then - BUT neither did they recover what they'd lost in the '67 war, correct?

When they were trounced.

And *that* is what brought them to the bargaining table - the failure to win with force of arms.

Right now the PLO is still willing to only use force.

Nothing you said shows how to *change* that, much less "Simply" negotiate.

So no, I don't think I'm wrong - the PLO wants to fight. The initial story was about the Israeli's finally going ahead and fighting - and trying to knock the fight out of them.

I see that as a perfectly reasonable prediction.... and futher, given the failures at the bargaining table, I'm not certain its an unreasonable idea.

Again, how would you get the PLO to the bargaining table, and make them use good faith?

Addison

Much clearer now.

The view that Israel's policy of blowing up people is reasonable and understandable.

Gotcha. Well, that's of course debatable. But under the circumstances, I'd be doing something similar. I'm not much of a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. :)

Many argue that it's Sadat that brought Israel to the table via the 1973 war, not the other way around. See the link above.

Possibly - but even so - it was the failure of force of arms (IMO) to "win" that caused the negotiation. Sometimes, its not an option. (the ob-WWII reference - both Japan and Germany tried to "negotiate" before all was lost (Hitler after he had most of Europe, initially). Would negotiation there have been in the best interests? (intentionally not specifing who or what's best interest).

Neither side is negotiating in good faith at the moment. It's not all the PA's fault.

All? No. Israel's done some damn stupid things. Right now, though, the PA is not interested in any negotiations, and so I will assign the current blame on them, mostly. Bluke's quotes are not very incorrect about the skewed view that their leaders have preached and told the people under them, while Israelis have had a much more "balanched" view available to them, IMO.

Someone, maybe the US, has to talk to both sides - Israel and the PA - with a substantial package of incentives and disincentives to get them to discuss what they'll accept and not accept. Outside parties like the US has to find a way to help build consensus.

(Why is it the US's problem? :))

By "simple" I mean it's clear what must be done. A new type of solution doesn't need to be found, but rather the same old tired approach of negotiations with visible tangible rewards and disincentives must be used.

I still don't see it as that simple. I don't know what 3rd parties are (able) to offer each side, in order to get concensus. The PA will be happy with the removal of Israel, but needless to say, I don't think Israel will accept. :)

I don't know what the US can offer. Adding to the problem is the other countries in the middle east, willing to offer support in proxy for the PA... And those countries (right now) aren't available for stick use from the US (since we depend on the oil, etc).

Addison