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/sho...0&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.