I chuckled at this.
As you have no doubt guessed, I do not concur with Idaho's assessment -- while well intentioned, assessing any single ceasefire in that region (and especially among those combatants) in isolation will not produce enough of a "whole" story to evaluate. It just galls me that some individuals can miss his whole point so completely. You don't have to agree with someone's point in order to acknowledge it, but such an acknowledgement is a courtesy that SHOULD be part of any politely argued discussion.
As a scholar of conflict management and, at least for a time, a court appointed mediator, I am of the opinion that both parties need to dispense with the parsiflage and get down to some serious blood-letting. Until one party (loose terminology of course, there are a myriad of sub-groups involved) has been defeated, or at least shocked enough to bargain seriously (as in, bargaining with the knowledge that BOTH parties must achieve real value in order to uphold the deal), nothing productive will occur at the negotiating table.
Israel and Egypt were not capable of bargaining usefully until after the Yom Kippur war. In that dust-up, Egypt came within days of breaking the Israeli military and plowing Israel under -- which scared the Israelis. On the other hand, Israel demonstrated that it could still pull off miracles and that a "successful" Yom Kippur war redux would have required LOTS of dead Egyptians. Having finally proven that a purely military answer was too risky, they were able to sit down at Camp David and cut a deal. Until an analogous level of pain is engendered in the Hamas/Israeli war, no lasting deal will occur. Cynical perhaps, but I think supportable as an argument. They have to stop talking and kill each other for a while so that maybe they can then talk and listen.
Hardly the position of your typical leftist infantophage. I suspect that the little darlings would crisp up too quickly on the grill anyways.
Bookmarks