[Cyclefrance]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I don't think Israel/Palestine is the root of any of this. I think it's just the most visible flashpoint. It fails to explain things like Bali and Chechnya.

I accept that there is no direct link. I think Bali still counts as an attack against the west, and Chechnya against foreign government interference. However, I don't really know too much about the detail of these to make further comment. Middle east for middle east, I still hold an Israel/Palestine solution as the key for neutralising support for the regimes that are causing disruptions there, and related disruptions elsewhere - also if we look back over the past few decades then a hell of a lot of terrorist acts have been linked to this conflict. Also I am not saying that Isreal/Palestine is responsible for every problem just that it is the root of the middle east and I would find it hard to argue that this was not the most damaging and dangerous at the present time. Prove that you can negate support for the perpetrators middle east wise, and there is good reason for applying the same approach in other situations..

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I don't think negotiation works at all because I think the other side sees it as a point of weakness. In 1999 Clinton worked with Arafat to come to a negotiated agreement on the problem. He was offered more than he'd ever been offered before. His answer was to turn it all down and return home and start the most recent intifada. "They are talking, they must be at the end of their rope, it's time to attack!"

I should have included the point in my original reply to you that I made later to Bruce namely that there needs to be agreement on a common objective first and throughout - you can't move forward if one side doesn't share the same objective - clearly Arafat had a separate agenda. Nonetheless, it is possible to turn a dissenter around to accept that change for the common good is valid - there are plenty of strong arguments involving big prizes to win (e.g. the carrot of staged substantial investment in return for and in line with results, the opportunity for longterm stability, and so on). Also that change brings with it big win/wins, not big win for one and big lose for the other. Always one step at a time and moving ahead another stage only when it is right to do so, otherwise it is unnecessarily courting risk of failure when there is no need to.