Klingon proverb.
The point is don't fight unless you have to. And if you have to, then you fight to win. There is nothing wrong with negotiating a settlement, as long as the negotiation is based on a rational understanding of the balance of forces. But if you are already in a war, and if you can win the war at a reasonable cost (and most times one side or the other can), then just win the war, and get the issue decided. Those who can do. Those who can't negotiate. That's because negotiation means making a deal. It means giving up something you want for something you want more. There's nothing wrong with that either as long as both sides are reasonable, and both can deliver on their promises. Also, remember that peace talks are never about peace. They are about what each side wants more than it wants peace. In Syria, for example, each side wants the other dead or at least to dominate and rule over the other side. So the cease fire is unlikely to last.
So what does that mean for the I/P conflict? First, Israel and the Palestinians are already in a war. It's not like Israel has a choice here between war and not war. They are stuck with the war that the Palestinians started back in 1947. The trick is how to end it. That means each side getting its act together and figuring out what it wants. Roman thinks that is, "Israel wants to survive; the Palestinian leadership wants to destroy it." That's generally true. It is probable that a majority of Israelis would give up most of the West Bank and all of Gaza, if that meant Israel could survive in peace. Part of the problem is that most Israelis believe it won't, and they are probably right. Also, the leadership of Israel represents hardline expansionists who want the West Bank. Without some change in Palestinian core positions, those hardliners are going to be able to keep driving the Israeli bus.
What Roman gets really wrong is the idea that Israel could achieve "victory" over the Palestinians at anything like a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, Palestine isn't much different from the rest the Middle East. Either you get an oppressive dictatorship that keeps order, or else you get the chaos of Islamist and Leftist factions fighting each other. What you don't get is a stable Western style liberal democracy that can live at peace with its neighbors. So if "victory" to Israel is continuing to survive and to not be attacked, the only way to achieve that is by imposing the oppressive dictatorship. That means destroying Hamas and Fatah once and for all, and then putting in some new rulers. Except those new rulers are either going to be the Israelis themselves (which the Israelis really don't want), or some dictator under Israel's thumb. Either way, the new government will have zero legitimacy and won't last. So "victory" means fighting a major war, with huge casualties, only to impose a "solution" that will just lead to another major war in few years. No one wants that.
= new reply since forum marked as read