IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Sorry I haven't been clear.
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.

Which "view"?

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

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

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.

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

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

Carrots and Sticks have to be used, just as in the past. 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.

It's a "simple" process. Is it easy? No. I don't have a magic formula, but I know what process has to be used. Blowing up people (by either side) isn't going to solve the problem.

Finally, I think this came up earlier in this thread... Here's a counterpoint on Barak's offer to the PA earlier this year:

[link|http://www.palestinemonitor.org/mustafa/notbarakproposal.htm|Why Palestinians could not accept Barak's proposal] It's possible to have honest disagreements about how generous the Barak proposal was and whether it would have made a viable Palestinian state possible.

I think I've said my peace on this topic.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thanks.
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
     A solution is offered to the war in the Middle East - (DonRichards) - (22)
         Prediction, more than a solution. - (addison) - (21)
             But, it won't bring peace. - (a6l6e6x) - (20)
                 What will? - (addison) - (19)
                     Always an excellent question.. - (Ashton)
                     Simple, really. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                         Not that simple. - (addison) - (4)
                             No time for point by point rebuttal... - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                 Then at least indicate WHICH point you think is wrong. - (addison) - (2)
                                     Sorry I haven't been clear. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         Thanks. - (addison)
                         Quite rational - (Silverlock) - (3)
                             The same thing was said about Egypt and Jordan and ... -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 The destruction of Israel is in their Government charter? - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                     Only so much fits in a Subject line... :-) - (Another Scott)
                     Prediction vs. balanced view - (a6l6e6x) - (4)
                         Re: Prediction vs. balanced view - (addison)
                         You're assuming that saner heads will prevail... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                             I'm *hoping* that saner heads will prevail, one day. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                 There 's the problem in a nutshell - (Silverlock)
                     "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless... - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                         Re: "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless... - (addison) - (1)
                             Living by the sword. - (a6l6e6x)

MEAT HELMET!
78 ms