How do you negotiate a cease fire, if you think that the ones that are doing the firing have to be eradicated ?
Exactly. Which is why I challenged your proposal in the first place. I don't think that Baker could negotiate a peace because one of the parties wants something impossible. Since you are so keen on a negotiated settlement I challenged you to suggest what terms might get Hezbollah to stop shooting at Israel given that their aim is to destroy Israel. I don't think there are any.
So you sidestepped that and proposed that instead Baker negotiate with Lebanon to control Hezbollah. That's all well and good if it stops Hezbollah from shooting. But Lebanon already agreed to do that as part of the previous deal under which Israel pulled out of Lebanon and perhaps has been doing so to the best of its abilities or perhaps hasn't been trying very hard. In any event, it has been unsuccessful. So what's the point of sending Baker to get Lebanon to agree to something that it has has already agreed to do but can't or won't do?
Is that too simple?
No, not too simple. It's just that we've been there, done that, didn't work, no reason to expect it will now.
I offered everyone incentives to stop the violence.
You have NOT offered any incentive to one of the two shooters in the current violence, the Hezbollah half. Show me where you have offered them incentives.
but if you include them there is no chance to succeed.
True. Your response to that reality is to send Baker off to have talks without Hezbollah, which also has no chance to succeed. My response, which is where I started this discussion, is that having sending Baker is a waste of time because it can't be successful.
Now I know how fond you are of doing something just to be doing something, as in global warming, but I find that a waste of energy.
a gang of nasty Israeli teenagers
Nasty teenagers? More like the Cosa Nostra in its prime and even that is way inadequate. If you think of Hezbollah as the equivalent of rowdy teenagers, no wonder you're dismissing them. |
