I think you've opened a can of worms that one side of the political spectrum has sworn never to absorb.

Because once you accept that talking is simply pointless in ONE case, say the Arab-Israeli situation, then you have to accept two things:

A. It is useless in other venues.
B. There is a difference in the standings of the two parties.

So long as one can dismiss BOTH sides (be it moral equivalency or "pox on both houses"), then one can be "above" the violence. Suggesting an end to negotiations, unless you're prepared to walk away entirely, means that, ultimately, you favor one side or the other.

That creates a fundamental bit of cognitive dissonance: alienate the Jewish vote by walking away, or recognize that the Palestinians, despite being the putative "under-dog", less well-armed and a "third world" entity and all the rest, may also be in the wrong.

Your comments decsribes well the deliberately-blind mindset of the left, and its consequences. But many liberal hawks (and many Jews who are just plain liberals or leftward) are beginning to question this and other assumptions. I know I won't convince wilfullly-blind ideologues... but I can write for those who will give me a hearing, and I do.

Speaking of cognitive dissonance, there is a great difference between legitimate complaints of non-combatant Palestinians who do indeed suffer under Israeli occupation and the motivations of the terrorists. Terrorism by Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc. is not a response to the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, or to the building of settlements. They are motivated by their hatred of Israel, true, but mostly they do what they do because it keeps them in power.

What would Hamas be without terrorism? Would one-eyed clerics who have spewed venom all their lives, given the appropriate set of concessions, easily redirect their energies to the administration of social services?

These people know as well as anyone else that they're not going to destroy Israel, and they know damn well that every act of terrorism extends the occupation and suffering of the Palestinians--that's why they do it.

I read lots of criticism of the "roadmap". Everybody says that it won't work, and they might be right. So, can somebody explain in plain language some specific steps that WILL work? And skip the the parts about how bad the Palestinians are, we know that and fully agree. The question is: What do you recommend to DO with them?

I do have a suggestion:an international occupation force of the West Bank and Gaza,fully armed and with the mandate,and obligation, to take down any organisation that defies the ceasefire.In return Israel would retreat its forces and ease some of the restrictions on the Palestinians.

Why it could work:even if the Palestinians chose the fight the "IOF",the most they could achieve,militarily,would be the return of the IDF.And if,say,Hamas and others managed to send some Swedish soldiers back home in bodybags,that would only create a lot more understanding on the part of the international community for Israel's actions.In short,it would be a lose-lose strategic situation for the Palestinians.

Why it can't work:no nation with any sense would sent their soldiers to that hell-hole,let alone take the responsibility for securing peace.But,apart from that,it could just work.

JH, Who would staff that force? The French? The EU? The Chinese? No Israeli believes that any force sent would actually live up to the mandate you specify - a belief reinforced by the conduct of international forces sent to the area since the 1970s. so, that solution is out.

Clue, here's one: if one of the parties is absolutely determined to wage war, there cannot be peace no matter how much you want it. Indeed, as we saw with Serbia, "peace processes" are just a tool to restrain and weaken their enemies. Worked, too.

Hamas and Hezbollah are openly genocidal. Arafat's Fatah has spent years inculcating genocidal hate, and openly murders in the streets any Palestinian even believed to be friendly toward Israel. Until Hamas, Hezbollah, and Arafat are dead, there will be no peace AND THERE CAN BE NO PEACE. You wish for peace? Guess what - your wishes are irrelevant because they do not.

When PA PM Mazen said he would never use force against Hamas or Hezbollah under any circumstances, he said there was no alternative to war. Because confronting them from within was the only real long term alternative. Hamas, Hezbollah, and Arafat have to dissolve or die - and then peace might have a real chance.

Israel plays along with the roadmap because U.S. actions in the reason hold the hope of doing what they cannot - remove the state support and weaken the organized hatred that keeps these evil men and organizations alive. To do so is a major act of trust, especially given the USA's poor record with allies. On the whole, however, that's a defensible strategic decision with acceptable casualty rates - IF the USA does what they say they will, and holds Palestinians to a similar standard with real cosequences for refusal or failure.

If the USA does not hold Palestinians to a similar standard, this is either the beginning of the end of Israel's existence or the beginning of a slide toward total war between Israel, a future Palestinian state, and any allies it has. Them's the stakes.

So far, the Palestinians and Arabs are being held to nothing, and asked for nothing. Comes a point where such behaviour needs to mean either real punishment until behaviour changes (no aid, no assistance, listing Fatah as a banned terrorist organization, etc). If that fails, it must also mean at minimum the end of talks, and public shelving of US support for a Palestinian state until and unless these requirements are met.

Which they will not be, until Hamas and Hezbollah are destroyed, and Arafat is dead. They have left no alternative to war, and will not change - the only questions are war with whom, and on what terms. They would prefer a war against a maximally-disarmed and fettered enemy, of course, both in the immediate term and in future.

Which is why intoning the term "peace process" as if it has any real meaning is not only foolish - it's immoral.

Dean:

I disagree with your point A:
What has become poinless is talking in this specific case. Conflict between nations/cultures/religions is far too complex to generalize.

People who think they can obtain what the want through violence will only be stopped by violence. Hamas, et al are hooked on violence, and the power violence gives them. They will never give up until all the Israelis are dead(spoken by their leaders countless times).

Some addictions may only be broken by going cold turkey; and sometimes, the addict dies.

Is there any doubt who is wrong now?? Israel takes one step forward for peace, and Hamas takes ten steps backwards.

Joe:

I am leaning closer and closer to your position as the minutes go by. I was very hopeful, until Hamas pulled out last w/e (yes?) then knew it was only a matter of time before they attacked again, knowing that Israel would retaliate.

But I still believe the attempt had to be made. It should be more clear to the world (but of course, there will always be some that take the Palestinian's side) that Israel did take steps in the direction of peace, by meeting with Abu Mazzen and closing some outposts. The fact that they were small outpost doesn't negate the fact that Sharon, who has been allowing new settlements to be built all along, reversed course and took steps towards peace.

On the other hand, Mazzen talked the talk, but couldn't walk the walk.

A peaceful solution between two parties in conflict cannot be found unless the people in control of each party wish for peace. I think that three out of the four parties are ready:
the Israeli people, the Israeli government and the Palestinian people (a majority, but probably not large.
However, the Palestinian "government" does not want peace, and probably never will.

So the choices boil down to this:

Israel is destroyed

or

the Palestinian government is destroyed

I think you can guess my choice, and I am certain that the Israeli government will make the same choice. The question is, when??

When your leg is caught in a trap, or you have gangrene in your arm, there is no question what you must do. There is no reason to wait any longer-delay can only make things worse.

To the "Person of Choler":

Joe was kind enough to link to my blog essay above. In this essay, I answer your question with a list of steps that might actually solve the problem.

If someone can come up with a better list of steps than mine, I'd love to see it, but the "road map" ain't it.

Michael J. Totten

Phil,

Dean's point was that the transnational progressivists cannot EVER admit that diplomacy is useless, because then they'd have to admit it could happen elsewhere, and that means having standards. So you two agree.

Joe,

What the heck are you doing up at 3:41 AM? It is 3:29 AM PST and so I'm as bad as you are.

Regarding the recent terrorist attacks: Hamas is no more going to stop conducting terrorist acts than ducks are going to wake up tomorrow and decide that they do not like paddling around in water. Negotiating with them using Egyptian proxies just emboldens them. What's the point? Why bother?

Of course, it is a joke that Arafat is President of the PA. He's no better than Hamas. He just pays more lip service to the idea that he's willing to be reasonable and is not totally committed to the complete destruction of Israel.

I think the Israelis needs to build very good walls to separate themselves from the Palestinians. It is absurd to imagine that a negotiated deal is going to end the attacks. Israel is going to have to give up on using Palestinian labor and just isolate themselves from the Palestinians. They should evacuate the Gaza settlements and all the remote West Bank settlements and erect tall walls with lots of sensors.

The Arabs are not going to really make peace in their own minds with the existence of Israel.

Joe:

After a second (and third,...) reading, I see what you mean.

Dean, I stand corrected.

Randall:

Good walls will cut down on attacks for a while, but I doubt this would be a permanent fix. In the battle between offense and defense, given the time and resources, the "impregnable fort" will always fall. When you are at war, the only long term solution is defeat/destruction of your enemies' will to fight. This may include physical destruction.

Randall,

Because we have contributors from all over the world, Winds of Change is on GMT. I'm at GMT -500, so 3:41am = 10:41pm where I sit. As for the rest, I agree.

Phil,

What do you propose? That Israel mobilize enough soldiers to occupy every street in the West Bank and Gaza? Also, say they do that and kill a bunch of suspected terrorists. Then what? They pull out and the terrorist groups rebuild.

I do not see how to defeat their will to fight using any method that is morally acceptable to Western Civilization in the early part of the 21st century. We are not going to see the US use WWII tactics let alone see Israel do it.

Walls and abandonment of the remote settlements of the West Bank and of all settlements in Gaza will put Israel in a position that is easier to explain and to understand. To people who do not follow the twists and turns in detail it is hard to understand the root causes of the conflict. But well defined borders would make the moral position of Israel a lot easier to explain and defend to casual observers.

Here's an idea.

Divide Israel into two seperate countries. No Gaza strip, no settlements. Let the Palestinian side rebuild. Make it known that any loss by an agressor will be perminent.

This will satisfy the majority of Europe. For some reason Europe sides with Palestinians as a way of appologizing for their colonies. The US lacks such guilt.

Historicly speaking, the Palestinians (or other arab countries) will attack Israel. Also historicly speaking, they will lose.

Randall:

You are right. You would still have to build the wall and pull back settlements. But you would have to have two walls, probably about ten miles apart (whatever the range of the Katuska (Katruska??)rockets) and vigorously patrol the space between them. (Could passive and active sensors, backed up by helicopter gunships suffice?)

What would you do with Jerusalem? Would there be other cities in a similar predicament? (I'm not familiar with Israel's geography)

You still have to eliminate the will to fight. I'm not saying carpet bomb the Palestinian territory, but you must seek, find and destroy the enemy (#2 is definitely the tough one) They will find a way to continue sending bombs into Israel. Until the people that think that way are dead (or change their minds-- not impossible, but not likely, either), there can be no peace. However, the wall will make things better.

Let's say the wall is built, and bombings are limited to Jerusalem, and there are only 3-4 per year. Is this acceptable to Israel? Or is one more too many?

It will not be an easy fight, but what happens if you give up??

At the end of WW II, nearly the entire population of Japan was ready to die gloriously in battle against the American barbarians. Due to their extremely regimented society, once the leadership had lost the will to fight, the population followed their lead, and for the most part, the Japanese people honored the surrender.

Would this happen in the Palestinian's case?? I don't know, but we know that it has happened in the past, and could happen again.

If Israel takes this route, I think they will attempt to limit true civilian deaths. Will that matter to the rest of the Islamic world?? The $64K question.

I think we will see the answers to these questions very soon.

PS- I also agree with your defined borders point in the last graf.

One more thing-What happens to the balance of poweer in the Middle East if the Iranian theocracy is toppled in the near future??

especially to 'JH', 'Armed Liberal, 'Joe Katzman' and 'jeanne a e devoto':

please recognise my last two answers in the 'back in the USSR' comments: http://windsofchange.net/cgi-bin/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=3592

although the article isn't anymore on the first page, the topic matters and the facts matter, too.