No peace talks in the middle east

J.G. Thayer at Commentary voices relief.

I am not a scholar of the Mideast, but in the years I have been following developing matters in the region, I have noticed that there is a recurring pattern in the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians.

1. Some outside body pushes for a peace agreement.
2. The body brings representatives together in some new place for intense talks.
3. The talks go on for a while, drawing up a plan.
4. The plan is announced with much fanfare, with a series of steps to be taken by each side building towards a lasting peace.
5. Before the conciliatory steps are begun, Israel is called upon to make some sort of concessions as a "gesture of good faith." (Note: This can occur before or concurrent with steps 3 and 4. Also, the Palestinians are never called upon to make similar gestures.)
6. Israel, under great pressure, makes the demanded "gesture" — usually involving release of prisoners or evacuation of lands.
7. Israel is praised by the global community for its "commitment to peace."
8. The agreement begins to be implemented, with Israel always having to begin to make the real concessions (this is in addition to the prior "gesture of goodwill.")
9. Israel makes the first of its concessions, and is praised once more for its "commitment to peace" by the global community.
10. The Palestinians start making excuses for why they cannot comply with the agreements they made at the negotiating table.
11. Israel is pressured to continue with its commitments and obligations unilaterally, with the warning that "they must not endanger the agreement."
12. Israel reluctantly continues to make its concessions, but demands that the Palestinians begin living up to their end of the bargain.
13. The Palestinians continue to prevaricate and stall, and warn that "rogue elements" might strike out to "destroy the peace process."
14. Israel announces that it will not continue with its obligations until the Palestinians begin living up to theirs. (Note that at this point, Israel has already made several concessions.)
15. The Palestinians accuse Israel of "sabotaging" the peace agreement and warn of "dire consequences."
16. A "rogue group" of Palestinians attack Israel.
17. The Palestinians warn Israel that any retaliation for the attack will "destroy the fragile peace" and end the agreement.
18. The rest of the global community also pressures Israel to "show restraint" and "not break the truce."
19. Another "rogue group" of Palestinians commits another attack.
20. Israel strikes back against the terrorists.
21. The Palestinians announce that Israel has "destroyed the peace" and formally withdraw from the agreement.
22. A fresh wave of terrorist attacks and Israeli retaliations resume.
23. Return to step 1.

Obviously, there are variations, but that is the basic outline.

Maybe someone should consider an alternative pattern, with steps such as:

4.  A plan is drawn up, with real consequences for whichever side attacks the other.

5.  "Good faith" steps are demanded of the Palestinians.

10.  The Palestinians, having missed the iron-clad deadline for compliance with the first steps of the plan, suffer consequences, up to and including the loss of territory.  At gunpoint, if need be.

16A.  The nation which brokered the peace agreement informs the Palestinians they have one week to take care of their "rogue group", round up or kill its leaders, and produce solid proof of compliance, or the brokering nation will invoke its right (spelled out in the plan drawn up in step 4) to enter Palestinian territory and deal with the "rogue group" itself.

19A.  Same as 16A.

Needless to say, any "rogue groups" attacking from Israel will provoke the same response as 16A, only directed at Israel.