Gingrich calls Mideast roadmap mistake

[Reffo]

Diplomacy won't work when one side doesn't deliver

Posted: June 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

While Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is pushing the Middle East roadmap to both Israelis and Palestinian Arabs, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich says it's time to abandon the plan.

"Diplomacy is important and has a vital role to play, but its function must be different than the Oslo process and the roadmap suggest," he writes in a paper in the summer edition of Middle East Quarterly. "The focus on Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy cannot work when one side has a leadership that does not deliver on its word."


In a paper titled, "Defeat Terror, Not Roadmap Diplomacy," Gingrich, like Rice, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, says talks with the Palestinian Authority should stop until it fulfills its promise to dismantle all terrorist infrastructures.

"Diplomats, by their nature, believe in talk and in paper," he wrote. "They value meetings and agreements. But in order for diplomacy to work, negotiators must be honest brokers willing to keep commitments."

The roadmap, developed by the Bush administration during early 2003 in cooperation with Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations, makes clear that all sides must make tangible steps toward a two-state vision. But, so far, says Gingrich, the Palestinian Arabs have failed to meet the test.

Gingrich called for less restraint by the Israel Defense Forces and a more aggressive military response to attacks on Israeli civilians.

"When a neighborhood shelters terrorists, it should not be surprised at a violent response," he insisted. "When a rocket or mortar is fired from a neighborhood, people should expect retaliatory fire. When someone advocates killing Israelis, they should expect to be killed by those they plan to kill."

Gingrich added: "The primary requirement for peace should be the destruction of the terrorists. This inherently is not a diplomatic task. Smoke and mirrors will not work."

[Mediocrates]

http://www.israelforum.com/board/showpost.php?p=146170&postcount=34

[Reffo]

Sorry Medio, I missed your post which you obviously posted earlier. Perhaps you may want to remove this thread, there is no point to duplicating stuff.

[Mediocrates]

it's fine. no worries.

[varian]

Diplomacy won't work when one side doesn't deliver

Posted: June 20, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

Gingrich called for less restraint by the Israel Defense Forces and a more aggressive military response to attacks on Israeli civilians.

"When a neighborhood shelters terrorists, it should not be surprised at a violent response," he insisted. "When a rocket or mortar is fired from a neighborhood, people should expect retaliatory fire. When someone advocates killing Israelis, they should expect to be killed by those they plan to kill."

Gingrich added: "The primary requirement for peace should be the destruction of the terrorists. This inherently is not a diplomatic task. Smoke and mirrors will not work."

Although I'm not a big Gingrich fan, the above quotes are "right on!!!"

[Allegro]

Gingrich is right.

[Hannah05]

This is my first time in this forum and I was very interested in this topic. I hope I am not intruding as I'm not sure of how things work here.

Gingrich has a point, but he is only articulating the problem not offering any real solutions. Many participants in these and indeed other peace talks throughout the world are not "men of good will" - this is a fact.

However, I have come to believe that diplomacy is all we have. If Israel can't get it right now then the conflict will continue to go on and on. Israel is not, in my opinion, the aggressor but it must find a way to bring about peace. I'm not advocating giving up more land or giving in to unreasonable demands but there are many other ways to achieve stability. I'm a great believer in the maxim that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. I believe that even terrorism cannot continue to exist when social conditions change and improve. If Islamic terrorists are motivated by what they see as "injustices" and not just blind hatred of Israel and Judaism then there is a chance to turn things around. I'm not smart enough to know how this social change can be achieved but I do know that there are men and women out there who could figure it out. Maybe not the ones who are talking now - so get another bunch of negotiators/mediators whatever. Israel has more than its share of bright, capable intellectuals - religious and secular. Of course there comes a time when there is no other alternative than to use force and the IDF needs to be kept strong for that possibility. Attempts need to be made at opening "real" dialogue first. I also believe that the USA should support Israel's peace efforts but not push their ideas on how peace can best be achieved. I think they meddle too much. Maybe if Gingrich lived in Israel he would not be so quick to dismiss diplomatic intervention. Seems to me he may be pushing his own agenda.

[KettleWhistle]

Yeah, but there is a little problem... there isn't anyone to talk with on the "Palestinian" side.

[Reffo]

Welcome Hannah05 :) I do agree with your comments in principle but not fully. My feeling is that in practice, in order for diplomacy to succeed, both sides must be willing partners and must want it to succeed.

Having said that, I do agree with you that Israel must be ready on both fronts. First and foremost, it must be ready to defend itself because ultimately, no one else will (when the chips are down). History has shown that, and unfortunately that experience makes it more difficult for Israel to take risks. Nevertheless, I do agree that wherever possible, they should create conditions that will smooth the way for diplomacy.

If you are interested, you may look at another thread where Sumud (who I think is a Palestinian) and I explored some possibilities. You might notice that even we, could not always keep it sufficiently civilized although I think we both tried hard. Anyway, I would be interested to hear your take on it and in your opinions: Click Here Try to look at both earlier and later posts.

[KettleWhistle]

I tend to think that bi-lateral Israeli-Palestinian negociations simply won't be productive. The whole Oslo story and Arafat's rejection of Barak's proposals testify to this effect more than anything else. Abbas may be willing to negociate some particulars, but he is loosing ground to Hamas. So the only thing to do is to impose a reasonable resolution of this conflict onto the Palestinians. And IMO that should be negociated and agreed upon by the U.S. (biggest contributor of donations to Palestinians), Israel, possibly Russia, and certainly with participation of Jordan and maybe Egypt.

[Tova]

Newt Gingrich just elevated my opinion of him to a "10"!!

As you can see this is my first post. I joined to become more informed of in the events in Israel and the Middle East.

KettleWhistle~Yeah, but there is a little problem... there isn't anyone to talk with on the "Palestinian" side.

That just might be a "plus". Some of those I've dealt with in the past on other forums aren't too open-minded.

[Hannah05]

Yeah, but there is a little problem... there isn't anyone to talk with on the "Palestinian" side.

You may well be right. At times it appears that even those Palestinians who may genuinely yearn for peace are constantly up against powerful elements within their own community who have a different agenda. I wonder though if the peace seekers are really in the minority? Surely if people keep negotiating there is a chance that shared understandings may develop. If they stop talking there is little chance. Nevertheless, I take your point and understand that sometimes negotiations need to be suspended to provide time for reflection. It it ever does become apparent that dialogue will achieve absolutely nothing then another course of action must be taken - but I'm not sure it has reached this point yet.

[Hannah05]

If you are interested, you may look at another thread where Sumud (who I think is a Palestinian) and I explored some possibilities. You might notice that even we, could not always keep it sufficiently civilized although I think we both tried hard. Anyway, I would be interested to hear your take on it and in your opinions: Click Here Try to look at both earlier and later posts.[/QUOTE]

I found the posts extremely interesting. My feeling is that after such a long period of conflict little can be achieved by the allocation of blame. If any real progress is to be made the reality of the now is the place to start and the focus must be on moving forward in a confident and positive manner. It is helpful, I believe, if both sides are able to acknowledge how their actions have brought about the present situation but dwelling on your own or another's shortcomings and failures takes time and energy away from moving forward. I know this seems obvious but of course in reality it is not easy to put aside the past. It is a lot easier to do, however, if both parties are willing to start from the same point i.e. we have a problem - let's find solutions - what do we have to do to move on. My hope is that there are enough movers and shakers on both sides who are willing and able to do this. I don't know how united or how splintered the Palestinian factions are but I have to believe that most Palestinians genuinely want to resolve this conflict so they can move ahead with their lives and work towards peace and prosperity for themselves and future generations. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope not.

[Reffo]

Hannah

I do agree with you, at least in principle, about the need to 'let go' of the past and of blame. However, like diplomacy, this can only be done if both parties adopt this and look towards the future more pragmatically. If one side persists living in the past, dredging up old grudges and inciting hatred, then unfortunately the other party has to defend itself against blood libels and put things in perspective. And today, Israel is the other party that has to react to the mindless propaganda and incitement that the Palestinians use to smear Israel's image and it's very legitemacy. Israel cannot afford to ignore their worldwide incitement because their propaganda is potentially even more damaging than their suicide bombing campaign.

[Mediocrates]

As opposed to what? Isn't a little silly to shape your policies around the wish that at some vague point in the future you'll have a rational sane opposite to deal with? If we've learned anything it's that unilateral action works no matter what the action is, or how sweeping it is. It is simply irrelevant what the Palestinians want or do or say because in 5 decades it's never once proved to be reliable or accurate or meaningful or useful or truthful.

[Reffo]

Medio

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Israel should just ignore Palestinian propaganda, lies and their claim that the existence of Israel is illegitemate beause it is built on "stolen Arab land"?

[Mediocrates]

Medio

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that Israel should just ignore Palestinian propaganda, lies and their claim that the existence of Israel is illegitemate beause it is built on "stolen Arab land"?


Yes. It doesn't matter and worrying about not doing anything unless and until there is some perfect state of grace with the Palestinians is a waste of time and effort. They have zero credibility and they will never change or advance or alter their tune. Not Ever. So screw it.

[Reffo]

I am not so sure that they have zero credibility in all circles. My fear is that already, this type of complacency has cost Israel dearly among many university campuses, unions, journalists, some of the public and with people who would not have been necessarily anti Israel but who tend to be ignorant about Middle East history. The Pals and their allies have done an excellent job in filling up the vacuum with their distorted myths and I don't agree with you that they have no credibility. Perhaps people in the USA are better informed about the ME but I see plenty of ignorance about it, at least in some circles (thankfully not everywhere though), here in Australia.

[Mediocrates]

Not relevant. That's a different battle. As far as actually doing something, what Israel does should be completely independent of what the Palestinians say or do or pretend to say or do. The only thing the rest of the world wants to see is the end or at least the neutering of Israel. All of those other things you describe are merely means to an end. In terms of expectations of the Palestinians, everyone agrees its zero. All you're aguing for is how much its supporters lie about that.

[Reffo]

But don't you think that the information war is important too? Haven't you learned the lessons of Vietnam?

[Mediocrates]

Not relevant. That's for historians. Any Israeli response to what it perceives to be some Palestinian statement or position has always had an outcome completely independent of that. And all of those events were shaped by whatever the Palestinians wanted them to be anyway. So in terms of what the Israelis should actually do, it's not important. Israel could give back 99% of Israel tomorrow morning, the Palestinians and their supporters would cry for more.

[Reffo]

As opposed to what? Isn't a little silly to shape your policies around the wish that at some vague point in the future you'll have a rational sane opposite to deal with? By the way, I never said that Israel should shape all it's policies about what might happen in the future. But I did say that they should counteract Arab propaganda now.

[Reffo]

But don't you think that the information war is important too? Haven't you learned the lessons of Vietnam?

Not relevant. That's for historians.You have got to be kidding. If the USA would not have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of people, including it's own citizens, because of the information war, it's quite probable that the whole of Vietnam would not be under Communist rule today.

[Mediocrates]

You have got to be kidding. If the USA would not have lost the battle for the hearts and minds of people, including it's own citizens, because of the information war, it's quite probable that the whole of Vietnam would not be under Communist rule today.


America lost VN because it lost the political will to either win it or credibly withdraw. Please remember that Nixon was very shrewd ending the draft when he did. It completely ended an effective antiwar movement. Maybe that's cynical but it's true. Even Todd Gitlin agrees with this analysis.

[Mediocrates]

By the way, I never said that Israel should shape all it's policies about what might happen in the future. But I did say that they should counteract Arab propaganda now.

That's an entirely parallel set of actions. Hasbara is useful as a tool but not as a policy tool. In fact Israel should intentionally obscure the connection between policy and Hasbara or contradict them outright. It would be far more effective to be somewhat unpredictable.

[Reffo]

America lost VN because it lost the political will to either win it or credibly withdraw. Please remember that Nixon was very shrewd ending the draft when he did. It completely ended an effective antiwar movement. Maybe that's cynical but it's true. Even Todd Gitlin agrees with this analysis.While I don't really want to dwell on Vietnam ad nauseum because that war has nothing in common with the ME, I do have to point out that one of the main reasons for the loss of political will was because of the loss of support for the war by ordinary Americans, that in turn was caused by the constant images of horror displayed on the mass media. And that in turn has something in common with how Israel is being portrayed to every man and his dog in the world.

[Reffo]

By the way, I never said that Israel should shape all it's policies about what might happen in the future. But I did say that they should counteract Arab propaganda now.

That's an entirely parallel set of actions. Hasbara is useful as a tool but not as a policy tool. In that case, I fail to see where you and I disagree with regards to the separation of Hasbara and policy.


In fact Israel should intentionally obscure the connection between policy and Hasbara or contradict them outright. It would be far more effective to be somewhat unpredictable.I am not sure what you mean by this.

[Mediocrates]

What I mean is that they should learn to be duplicitous. They should say one thing and do another. They should be as difficult and abrasive to deal with as the Palestinians. They should train people to be as good liars as the Palestinian flacks trotted out on cable news. They should simply make up things and events and outrages and they should declare that every single act, every single event, every single utterance of the Palestinians is an atrocity.

[MGB8]

I disagree, medio.

While you might not think that having the truth on your side counts for much, I think in the end it does. The Pal Arabs have been massively discredited with their lies about Jenin, etc. The ONLY reasons they are tolerated is (1) oil - don't want to piss off the A-rabs, and (2) the good ol'e Jew hating contingent.

As for lefties, this is, in my opinion of consequences of narrative, where Israel has failed to establish the true narrative because mainly of embarassment over the original, overly idealistic Jewish narrative (the land was empty, etc.) If you establish in a population the belief that Israel's creation was just, then most Israeli measures of self-defense are approved of - hence US public opinion (for now). If the population believes that Israel's ceration was unjust, then, without directly calling for its destruction and genocide of the Jews, the population will support half-measures to that effect, and no self defense will be tolerated, while terrorism will be justified.

[Mediocrates]

I disagree, medio.

While you might not think that having the truth on your side counts for much, I think in the end it does. The Pal Arabs have been massively discredited with their lies about Jenin, etc.

Makes no difference.



As for lefties, this is, in my opinion of consequences of narrative, where Israel has failed to establish the true narrative because mainly of embarassment over the original, overly idealistic Jewish narrative (the land was empty, etc.)


Every single 'we were there first' argument is just revisionism in a different wrapper. And that's true for both sides. It is utterly irrelevant that you think Allah or Moses or some Turkish census from 1880 'proves' you deserve it. Israel is a country today, now, right here. Would that we could erect a kind of rhetorical yardstick like those gates on the rollercoasters and demand everyone to justify their existence: "You must be THIS tall to a be a country".


If you establish in a population the belief that Israel's creation was just, then most Israeli measures of self-defense are approved of - hence US public opinion (for now).

"Public" opinion, such as it is in America is probably 50% against Israel or at best neutral. And I'm talking about American Jews. Facts don't matter - what matters is opinion leaders. For example there are at least a half dozen American Protestant Church organizations (representing millions of Americans) which openly call for divestment, or worse against Israel. These are not people who don't read newspapers. These are not people who autonomically support Arab causes. These are not people who don't know about bus bombings. They don't care. What they care about is punishing people in Israel as an edification to their own egos and to their beliefs about justice, no matter how perverted they are.


If the population believes that Israel's ceration was unjust, then, without directly calling for its destruction and genocide of the Jews, the population will support half-measures to that effect, and no self defense will be tolerated, while terrorism will be justified.

It's only the idiots like Juan Cole and university 'middle eastern studies' departments who actually claim this. And for them it's a kind of revisionist tool. Like our fellow posters here who love to rewrite history - it's merely a means a to an end. They believe you can uninvent something. For the vast majority the simple fact is they don't need a 'reason' or a rationale. They simply want to see Israelis and Jews perish. Are these the people you want to persuede?

[SteveMetch]

Not relevant. That's for historians. Any Israeli response to what it perceives to be some Palestinian statement or position has always had an outcome completely independent of that. And all of those events were shaped by whatever the Palestinians wanted them to be anyway. So in terms of what the Israelis should actually do, it's not important. Israel could give back 99% of Israel tomorrow morning, the Palestinians and their supporters would cry for more.

110% correct. Even if they returned 99% of the Israel they would all just be up on top of that new wall firing rockets into the last square mile of Israel. The root problem with the Middle East is that’s its full of Muslims. Not to be confused with Arabs who outwardly practice Islam just to get along with the true believers. A more accursed people you will not find on the face of this Earth.

Gensis 12:3
“I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you. All the communities of the earth shall find blessing in you."

This demonic religion in combination with the extremely high rate of inbreeding over thousands of years is all you need to know in order to understand what Israel and the rest of the modern world faces from this bunch. When you inbreed dogs you get distemper as fitting a description for the Arab mind as any.

By the way, once the wall is completed and all Israeli’s are safely behind it what is Israel going to do once mortar and rockets are continuously raining down upon them from the Muslim occupied regions of Judea and Samaria?

[MGB8]

Medio,

This is our fundamental disagreement. I have noted in people I have observed that, in essence, what is irrelevant is that Israel is a country, now. The only thing that is relevant is how justified people think Pal Arab terrorism is. People just don't buy the "terrorism is never justified line" - at least not until they are subjected to it, and even then, its a limited buy.

Thus the question is not "Israel is a country now, how do we deal" but "are Pal Arab and/or Israeli actions justified." If a person buys the "Jews came and stole all this Arab land" narrative, then Arab terrorism is justified and the Jewish response not justified. If a person buys "Jews came and established a state that did not steal land, only got in the way of Arab aspirations" - then Israel's land acquisitions in 48, 67, are justified, Israel is asked to give back less, and Israeli responses to terror, even the most brutal, are justified.

Its that simple.

You CANNOT byepass the "does Israel have the right to exist" debate. That is the ENTIRE debate. And the Arabs are winning, right now... there are more Sumud's and Michael's than otherwise.

[Mediocrates]

This is our fundamental disagreement. I have noted in people I have observed that, in essence, what is irrelevant is that Israel is a country, now. The only thing that is relevant is how justified people think Pal Arab terrorism is.



I say let the supporters of terrorism strap a bomb to themselves or be themselves victims of other people’s terrorism. It makes no difference. There is probably one thing I agree with George Bush on when spoke about the Bigotry of Low Expectations. That captures it perfectly – it is bigotry and when you point out that terrorism is not a good plan, even when you point out that Arab on Arab violence is not going to work for them – they simply don’t care. It’s not part of how they think.






People just don't buy the "terrorism is never justified line" - at least not until they are subjected to it, and even then, its a limited buy.



What did it take in this country for people to realize that terrorism is a danger, that it exists? And when all is said and done people worry about their own hometown or some mythological version of it. Does anyone find it weird that the loudest outcry about terrorism in the US comes from the heartland where people have rarely if ever been exposed to it or threatened by it? None of them are all that concerned for the plight of Israelis or anyone else far away. Does anyone know how many American citizens, people who carried American passports, were murdered by the Palestinians? More than 50 including a dozen children. Does anyone even know that? Does anyone care? In any other setting we’d the 82nd Airborne kicking the hell out of someone. We broke diplomatic relations, embargoes and made a pariah of Iran for keeping that many people hostage. But the systemic brutal murder in attack after attack of Americans in one foreign country is met with, what? Debates about whether you can call it Israel on this side of a fence versus the other.






Thus the question is not "Israel is a country now, how do we deal" but "are Pal Arab and/or Israeli actions justified." If a person buys the "Jews came and stole all this Arab land" narrative, then Arab terrorism is justified and the Jewish response not justified.



I think coupling “Jew” and “stole” in the same sentence plays to something deeper and darker than rational thought. But perhaps in a more enlightened or maybe more cynical political response people think that Israel fights the people they themselves hate so it’s ok to support them. After all it was George Bush who convinced people to ‘fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here’, yes?

[Reffo]

Medio, MGB8

Believe it or not, I agree with both of you. On the one hand, Medio, you are right that there are people in this world who are committed anti zionists/Israel/Jews and nothing Israel will do or don't do or say will be good enough for them. On the other hand, there are many decent and reasonable people whose opinion does count. So Medio, I believe that those are the people who the Hasbara should be targeted at and that's where I agree with MGB8 that the truth ultimately wins out because if we treat those people as idiots, we will just alienate them as well. Equally, if we keep quiet, or propogate an ineffective message, the Arabs will win by default and their myths will be accepted even by decent people and unfortunately that seems to have been the pattern over the last 30 or so years.

[Hannah05]

Hannah

Israel cannot afford to ignore their worldwide incitement because their propaganda is potentially even more damaging than their suicide bombing campaign.

I certainly agree with you on this. I can also understand where you are coming from when you made the suggestion further on in another post that Israel should also play the game of saying one thing and meaning another. Your strategy could be quite helpful and such a strategy of fighting fire with fire has been used by good guys throughout history - armies still use it as a strategic ploy. Personally, however, I'm not sure if the end justifies the means - but in the final analysis I suppose if it were to bring peace and stability for Israel then all well and good. Those who would seek to generally discredit Jews as a result of their use of such a strategy engage in castigating Jews without any justification anyway. Also, it seems to me that public opinion often changes with the passing of time - what may have been loathsome today is applauded tomorrow. So maybe short-term world reaction is irrelevant compared to what it could achieve?

[Reffo]

I can also understand where you are coming from when you made the suggestion further on in another post that Israel should also play the game of saying one thing and meaning another.Hannah, you are mistaken. Mediocrates was the one who suggested that, not me.

I said this: ".......I agree with MGB8 that the truth ultimately wins out because if we treat those people as idiots, we will just alienate them as well."