To: Ilaine who wrote (16756 ) 1/18/2002 5:15:18 PM From: Nadine Carroll Respond to of 281500 Don't think I haven't handled cases where the parties have threatened each other's lives. I was not speaking of threats, but actual violence. I suspect that under the rubric of the American legal system, actual acts of arson and violence would reshape the parameters of the negotiations. But you still didn't answer my question, so you tell me.The people of Israel and Palestine have been stuck in an antagonistic posture for too long. They need closure. They need to be able to move on with their lives. Very rationally spoken. Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of hostility. I don't think you have realized the full extent of the irrationality you're dealing with in Arafat and the Arab ethos he represents and has fully internalized. This ethos is exquisitely tuned to matters of pride, honor, loyalty and face. It's very badly tuned to matters of honesty, reason or compromise. For example, it was the Arab ethos that caused Nasser to tell King Hussein in a private phone call (which the Israeli tapped, which is how we know) on the second day of the Six Day War that his air force was in good shape and fighting back hard. In reality, his air force had been completely destroyed in the first ten minutes of the war, but he couldn't admit this even in private. This misinformation caused King Hussein to take some decisions he later regretted. Oslo would have worked if Arafat had been rational. For that matter, Munich would have worked too, if Hitler had been the rational man that Chamberlin took him for. Chamberlin couldn't bring himself to realize that Hitler's mindset was totalitarian and dedicated to the creation of the Thousand Year Reich. Similarly, Oslo's architects could not see that Arafat sees himself as the second coming of Saladin, who will destroy the second Crusader Kingdom -- Israel -- just as Saladin destroyed the first.