What a load of cobblers. You're using the logic of the Israeli's. Doesn't matter how many innocents you kill as long as you get those you're after.
It shouldn't have to be a choice between two extremes - Kill the terrorists no matter how many innocents get killed in the process versus sitting down with these terrorists for a cup of tea and biscuits. Besides, neither solution will work in the long term. You cannot kill them all since there will always be others to take their place. And neither will talking do any good since they would rather die than give up their cause.
However, there is always a third way if one has a will and and the inclination to look for it.
First of all, using Israeli analogy is ridiculous because they are fighting out for a disputed territory. They don't acknowledge the rights of Palestinians and are the aggressors. They kill because they believe that Hamas is killing their people (which may or may not be true) but the fact remains, Israeli are aggressors.
Pakistan is in a state of war with its own internal elements and is not fighting a disputed territory.
Pakistan has never been the aggressor for tribal areas, until they were forced to because of infiltration of terrorists who used Pakistani soil to launch attacks against Pakistani government. It is the terrorists that are the aggressors here instead of Pakistani government as you make seem believe.
Pakistan did not declare war on tribal areas, until they started the fundamentalist policies. In a country, if one region decides to break away from you, and in some degree of autonomy practices principles that are detrimental to the country's constitution, a country reserves the right of use of force, to bring that area back under control.
Of course , the aim is to minimize the losses. But once again, to achieve control, how far would you go? would you stop because you are worried about civilians of that territory. If you do, then how will you gain control of those autonomous regions that are serving as seeds for growth of terrorists.
I think you get the feeling I am condoning killing of civilian population. I am not doing that at all.
I just realize that when a country is in a state of war (which obviously you do not believe), casualties are a part of the war.
I am not saying go out there, and rape and kill and destroy their children and women. I am saying if in a war, there are casualties, despite trying to be protective; I can understand them.
No one is saying to bomb their schools. In fact bombing of Lal Masjid was the single worst act President Musharraf did as President of Pakistan.
Its repercussions are still going on right now.
But if you can't accept minimum civilian casualties in a war, that's being fought to bring the country back under control of the government, then don't start the war in the first place.
Army can just stop the operation and we can just let the matter linger on for another 2 decades till a fundamentalist Pakistan destroys itself.