After a suicide bombing in Jersalem Thursday, the truce talks were cancelled (article here). I’m not sure how much the talks would have helped the situation, but weren’t the truce talks supposed to be a result of Israel’s moving out of Bethlehem, meeting a Palestinian demand for a cease-fire? As AZCOWBOY posted,
But how should the situation be treated? Obviously, we’ve been doing something wrong…
A spokesman for the Palestinian Authority was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and made the comment that there were no suicide bombers between 1991 and the recent wave (aside from a brief period in 1996.) He, of course, blamed Israel for causing the suicide bombers by pulling away from the peace process, but he said/implied that the Palestinian Authority DOES INDEED have the power to stop the suicide bombers… when it wants to.
One thing to remember in this is the Middle East’s love of haggling. The peace process is on temporary hold, but it makes so much sense politically and economically (to say nothing of the cost in lives) that it will, sooner or later, resume. The problem with this particular period of haggling is that lives are being lost, but the Palestinian Authority doesn’t seem to care. They’re willing to pay that price to get a better bargaining position.
This haggling has been going on for years. “My grandchildren will starve if I accept anything less than ten dinars for this.” Only, of course, the political ploy was “My religion forbids me to give up blah-blah.” Same thing. Then Arafat went too far, and the Israelis walked away from the bargaining table – again, a typical haggling ploy: “You’ve asked too much, the deal is off.”
They will get back together, although it will take time and lives.