Israel: Operation Protective Edge

[zolace]

I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians.

This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)?

Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.

Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity.

Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below.

I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives.
Side note: G7 now

It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done.

[zolace]

Side note: G7 now

That's just temporary. Obamasanctions will prevail.

And there is another problem, hopefully to stay unrelated. I suspect Russia will bite off another piece of Ukraine within a couple of months.

[sana8410]

I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).

The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in.

finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic".

You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see.

The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up.

1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise.

2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly.

3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public.

This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail.

For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though.

For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel.

The reason I disagree with this is that the level of education required to get beyond this is far too great for the American public to care enough about. People in the US tend to prefer to look at the simpler solution, and I'm not saying that particularly rudely. It's the same reason rights are being diminished slowly. The discussion of how to stop it is formidable, and most assuredly more difficult than justifying it and going along with it. I admire your optimism, but I suspect it's not going to work out well.

I can agree to some extent. It really depends on the narrative that our media chooses to push, though the phenomenon you are describing is why I stopped listen to our TV media in the first place. What i did see this time compared to Operation Cast Lead is much more condemnation of Israel 9though I didn't watch things like Fox News) and much more speaking out against the operation on social media. all despite the fact that Operation Cast Lead contained (most likely) way more potential war crimes and human rights abuses. So that's something.

[zolace]

I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).

The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in.

finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic".

You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see.

The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up.

1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise.

2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly.

3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public.

This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail.

For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though.

For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel.

The reason I disagree with this is that the level of education required to get beyond this is far too great for the American public to care enough about. People in the US tend to prefer to look at the simpler solution, and I'm not saying that particularly rudely. It's the same reason rights are being diminished slowly. The discussion of how to stop it is formidable, and most assuredly more difficult than justifying it and going along with it. I admire your optimism, but I suspect it's not going to work out well.

I can agree to some extent. It really depends on the narrative that our media chooses to push, though the phenomenon you are describing is why I stopped listen to our TV media in the first place. What i did see this time compared to Operation Cast Lead is much more condemnation of Israel 9though I didn't watch things like Fox News) and much more speaking out against the operation on social media. all despite the fact that Operation Cast Lead contained (most likely) way more potential war crimes and human rights abuses. So that's something.

Part of your problem is you don't watch enough fair and balanced Fox. I wasn't really aware until last night how much effort Israel was putting into propaganda. There were some wild advertisements vilifying Hamas...who I don't really see in as bad a light as many others...and asking for your support via a website called "stophamasnow.com". I haven't worked up the interest yet to check it out, but they were pretty much on every 5-10 minutes. I have MSNBC on now, because I want to see if it's mass advertising.

[sana8410]

I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians.

This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)?

Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.

Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity.

Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below.

I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives.
Side note: G7 now

It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done.

I don't see any path period. Israel isn't a partner for peace. As you stated they are perfectly content with the status quo (for now). The best course forward towards changing that would be to attempt to change US opinions on the subject and / or Israeli opinions on the subject, both of which requires a public and open discussion of the details of the conflict among the voter bases of said countries.

[zolace]

I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians.

This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)?

Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.

Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity.

Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below.

I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives.
Side note: G7 now

It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done.

I don't see any path period. Israel isn't a partner for peace. As you stated they are perfectly content with the status quo (for now). The best course forward towards changing that would be to attempt to change US opinions on the subject and / or Israeli opinions on the subject, both of which requires a public and open discussion of the details of the conflict among the voter bases of said countries.

My thought process has nothing to do with Israel except peripherally. Someone like al-Masri will have excellent connections in London, New York, and Toronto...probably Germany and France as well. This hypothetical person has to use those types of connections to work directly with G7 countries...all of whom will jump at the chance to look good by welcoming Palestine into the group of civilized countries that want economic growth, not war. It would appeal to the hubris of the other 6 countries, and the US would say all their well laid plans are working out. It has a pretty good chance of working, and making Israel jump on the wagon or look very bad. Obviously this isn't what some parts of Israel wants, but it would be tough to stop.

[sana8410]

I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).

The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in.

finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic".

You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see.

The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up.

1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise.

2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly.

3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public.

This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail.

For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though.

For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel.

The reason I disagree with this is that the level of education required to get beyond this is far too great for the American public to care enough about. People in the US tend to prefer to look at the simpler solution, and I'm not saying that particularly rudely. It's the same reason rights are being diminished slowly. The discussion of how to stop it is formidable, and most assuredly more difficult than justifying it and going along with it. I admire your optimism, but I suspect it's not going to work out well.

I can agree to some extent. It really depends on the narrative that our media chooses to push, though the phenomenon you are describing is why I stopped listen to our TV media in the first place. What i did see this time compared to Operation Cast Lead is much more condemnation of Israel 9though I didn't watch things like Fox News) and much more speaking out against the operation on social media. all despite the fact that Operation Cast Lead contained (most likely) way more potential war crimes and human rights abuses. So that's something.

Part of your problem is you don't watch enough fair and balanced Fox. I wasn't really aware until last night how much effort Israel was putting into propaganda. There were some wild advertisements vilifying Hamas...who I don't really see in as bad a light as many others...and asking for your support via a website called "stophamasnow.com". I haven't worked up the interest yet to check it out, but they were pretty much on every 5-10 minutes. I have MSNBC on now, because I want to see if it's mass advertising.

Well, and the 2012 ceasefire. But I also don't see economic opportunity as something that is going to improve things here for a couple of reasons (despite the fact that I usually love this track to conflict resolution):

1.) The ultra-Orthodox will prioritize occupation over economic growth. This is inherent to their social structure. And as long as such Orthodox parties are kingmaker parties within Israeli governmental coalitions then they will be able to block peace plan progress as they have in the past regardless of what the majority of Israelis want.

2.) Israel doesn't really need Palestine economically, it can (and has in some cases) simply push Palestinians out of the market and appropriate desired economic territory for itself through settlement expansion.

[zolace]

I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).

The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in.

finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic".

You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see.

The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up.

1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise.

2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly.

3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public.

This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail.

For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though.

For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel.

The reason I disagree with this is that the level of education required to get beyond this is far too great for the American public to care enough about. People in the US tend to prefer to look at the simpler solution, and I'm not saying that particularly rudely. It's the same reason rights are being diminished slowly. The discussion of how to stop it is formidable, and most assuredly more difficult than justifying it and going along with it. I admire your optimism, but I suspect it's not going to work out well.

I can agree to some extent. It really depends on the narrative that our media chooses to push, though the phenomenon you are describing is why I stopped listen to our TV media in the first place. What i did see this time compared to Operation Cast Lead is much more condemnation of Israel 9though I didn't watch things like Fox News) and much more speaking out against the operation on social media. all despite the fact that Operation Cast Lead contained (most likely) way more potential war crimes and human rights abuses. So that's something.

Part of your problem is you don't watch enough fair and balanced Fox. I wasn't really aware until last night how much effort Israel was putting into propaganda. There were some wild advertisements vilifying Hamas...who I don't really see in as bad a light as many others...and asking for your support via a website called "stophamasnow.com". I haven't worked up the interest yet to check it out, but they were pretty much on every 5-10 minutes. I have MSNBC on now, because I want to see if it's mass advertising.

Well, and the 2012 ceasefire. But I also don't see economic opportunity as something that is going to improve things here for a couple of reasons (despite the fact that I usually love this track to conflict resolution):

1.) The ultra-Orthodox will prioritize occupation over economic growth. This is inherent to their social structure. And as long as such Orthodox parties are kingmaker parties within Israeli governmental coalitions then they will be able to block peace plan progress as they have in the past regardless of what the majority of Israelis want.

2.) Israel doesn't really need Palestine economically, it can (and has in some cases) simply push Palestinians out of the market and appropriate desired economic territory for itself through settlement expansion.

If Palestine...and by that I really mean Gaza...can avoid sending rockets over, and stop doing the stupid stuff like building tunnels to kidnap and kill, then Israel's militant stance becomes immeasurably more difficult. Honestly, if necessary, Perhaps the final solution would be to cut Gaza loose, and have the rest of the Palestinians say they want nothing to do with them. I'm not sure how well that would work because Israel would scream about it, but the threat may diminish the popularity of the various militant groups there, and possibly force Hamas out of power. As I mentioned, I don't find Hamas itself all that bad, but they are inextricably tied to the militants, whether it's fair or not.

[sana8410]

I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians.

This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)?

Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.

Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity.

Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below.

I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives.
Side note: G7 now

It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done.

Palestinian polls show that a majority of Palestinians want to not only live peacefully with Israel, but hope for reconciliation with Israel; which, in the midst of conflict and high levels of abuse, is fairly remarkable. NATO certainly seems to agree.

[Rigon]

I have to run for today...I look forward to continuing the discussion between the pragmatist(me) and the ideologue(you).

The above isn't pragmatic. It ignores the very real impacts that dialogue has in framing the issue. Your comments that US attitudes won't change is also statistically incorrect, they have been changing over the years it just isn't close to a tipping point yet, as has the international response to such incursions. I find your "pragmatism" to be a little lopsided because it recognizes the power of Israeli PR and propaganda but completely ignores the concept of PR and propaganda from Palestinian factions and completely ignores international pressures, not only on Israel, but on the US as well. I'd also argue that it is in no way pragmatic to lump all Palestinian factions together or to ignore the evolution of insurgency and the threat of a third intifada as the Abbas administration gets further undermined by violence in Gaza. That's just an excuse to avoid talking about issues that you might not be as well versed in.

finally your final line rather ignores the entire history of modern conflict resolution. That's not the way it works so leaning on that isn't very "pragmatic".

You're suggesting my joke wasn't pragmatic? I see.

The rest, however, was. The Palestinian PR machine has been in high gear for several years now. It really hasn't gone anywhere important. Israel has kept it's PR machine at the lobbying level. They certainly have the capacity to ratchet it up whenever they desire for the American public. And let's face it, they can easily use examples like the idiot Hamas spokesperson and the Hamas charter to blow all the concepts out of proportion. This is why the Palestinians and their vitriolic language will fail. They need to decide whether to use PR or force. They are unable to use both at once because of the nature of how they drum up supporters to blow themselves up.

1.) Polling data in the US over time would indicate otherwise.

2.) I agree that Hamas hurts the Palestinian PR effort greatly.

3.) Education isn't as easy to push and it takes longer / more involvement, but it can also be used to defeat propaganda. The Israeli PR machine rather depends on a largely ignorant US public.

This one in particular is important. It should have caused a dramatic shift, and it would have except for groups like Hamas and people like Arafat. This is why it will also continue to fail.

For the first part of the sentence: I don't think so, it has been a slow shift and hasn't reached that tipping point yet. Operation Protective Edge helps though.

For the last part: It will only fail in the absence of educational levels of the conflict. like I said, the Hamas / Arafat angles only really work as propaganda against those unfamiliar with the details of the conflict. So in that area, time is not an ally of Israel.

The reason I disagree with this is that the level of education required to get beyond this is far too great for the American public to care enough about. People in the US tend to prefer to look at the simpler solution, and I'm not saying that particularly rudely. It's the same reason rights are being diminished slowly. The discussion of how to stop it is formidable, and most assuredly more difficult than justifying it and going along with it. I admire your optimism, but I suspect it's not going to work out well.

I can agree to some extent. It really depends on the narrative that our media chooses to push, though the phenomenon you are describing is why I stopped listen to our TV media in the first place. What i did see this time compared to Operation Cast Lead is much more condemnation of Israel 9though I didn't watch things like Fox News) and much more speaking out against the operation on social media. all despite the fact that Operation Cast Lead contained (most likely) way more potential war crimes and human rights abuses. So that's something.

Part of your problem is you don't watch enough fair and balanced Fox. I wasn't really aware until last night how much effort Israel was putting into propaganda. There were some wild advertisements vilifying Hamas...who I don't really see in as bad a light as many others...and asking for your support via a website called "stophamasnow.com". I haven't worked up the interest yet to check it out, but they were pretty much on every 5-10 minutes. I have MSNBC on now, because I want to see if it's mass advertising.

Israel has a very capable government and is excellent at lobbying and propaganda, but I wonder how much of what we are seeing here in the US is from the Israeli government and how much is from pro-Israeli US lobby groups. Israel's strongest lobby base here are US conservative Christians.

[zolace]

I wanted to cull this out. You in particular have made some excellent points, and put together a rational narrative over the last several years in support of a more balanced foreign policy in regards to the middle east. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, and I probably disagree more than agree with the sorts of practical actions that could happen (strategy issues), but no one with an IQ that reaches 3 digits could honestly say you haven't made a good case. And listening to the news, it appears 2 missiles were fired from Gaza to Israel before the ceasefire ended. This is certainly a winning strategy.

[Rigon]

I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians.

This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)?

Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.

Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity.

Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below.

I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives.
Side note: G7 now

It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done.

I don't see any path period. Israel isn't a partner for peace. As you stated they are perfectly content with the status quo (for now). The best course forward towards changing that would be to attempt to change US opinions on the subject and / or Israeli opinions on the subject, both of which requires a public and open discussion of the details of the conflict among the voter bases of said countries.

My thought process has nothing to do with Israel except peripherally. Someone like al-Masri will have excellent connections in London, New York, and Toronto...probably Germany and France as well. This hypothetical person has to use those types of connections to work directly with G7 countries...all of whom will jump at the chance to look good by welcoming Palestine into the group of civilized countries that want economic growth, not war. It would appeal to the hubris of the other 6 countries, and the US would say all their well laid plans are working out. It has a pretty good chance of working, and making Israel jump on the wagon or look very bad. Obviously this isn't what some parts of Israel wants, but it would be tough to stop.

I agree with this description, and I actually think that is really what is at the root of the current escalation in conflict. The Palestinians formed a unity government which is incredibly dangerous to Israel on an international diplomatic level and I think Israel was very perceptive of that. It historically has used Hamas to counter Fatah's diplomatic efforts. Unity threatened that vital mechanism, so Israel encouraged conflict or, rather, encouraged division by tightening the screws on Hamas via the blockade and by arbitrarily arresting hundreds of Hamas activists without charge or trial. The current conflict (though I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Netanyahu was hoping to start a war like this) has been rather effective at leaning on the old political divide. I wonder if the unity government will survive this.

[zolace]

I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians.

This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)?

Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.

Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity.

Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below.

I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives.
Side note: G7 now

It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done.

I don't see any path period. Israel isn't a partner for peace. As you stated they are perfectly content with the status quo (for now). The best course forward towards changing that would be to attempt to change US opinions on the subject and / or Israeli opinions on the subject, both of which requires a public and open discussion of the details of the conflict among the voter bases of said countries.

My thought process has nothing to do with Israel except peripherally. Someone like al-Masri will have excellent connections in London, New York, and Toronto...probably Germany and France as well. This hypothetical person has to use those types of connections to work directly with G7 countries...all of whom will jump at the chance to look good by welcoming Palestine into the group of civilized countries that want economic growth, not war. It would appeal to the hubris of the other 6 countries, and the US would say all their well laid plans are working out. It has a pretty good chance of working, and making Israel jump on the wagon or look very bad. Obviously this isn't what some parts of Israel wants, but it would be tough to stop.

I agree with this description, and I actually think that is really what is at the root of the current escalation in conflict. The Palestinians formed a unity government which is incredibly dangerous to Israel on an international diplomatic level and I think Israel was very perceptive of that. It historically has used Hamas to counter Fatah's diplomatic efforts. Unity threatened that vital mechanism, so Israel encouraged conflict or, rather, encouraged division by tightening the screws on Hamas via the blockade and by arbitrarily arresting hundreds of Hamas activists without charge or trial. The current conflict (though I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Netanyahu was hoping to start a war like this) has been rather effective at leaning on the old political divide. I wonder if the unity government will survive this.

If so, that is pretty practical proof that it has potential as a strategy. Unfortunately, once the rockets start flying and the kidnappings/murders start, it all goes out the window. I honestly have no understanding of groups like Islamic Jihad. Their concept of life is too dramatically different than mine. I can accept that wars happen, but the idea is to try and find peace, while letting all sides have some dignity.

It's my biggest beef against Woodrow Wilson. But that's a different issue and a different war.

[Rigon]

That's always been my stance since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. A separate productive discourse with Abbas in the West Bank focusing on West Bank specific peace plan promises and issues. As Palestinians get more of what they want / need and see progress on Palestinian state building through Abbas' tactics while things remain stagnant for Hamas, then that rather effectively politically marginalizes Hamas. Unfortunately as things stand now, in the face of Israeli administration refusal to halt settlement expansion or live up to any West Bank specific peace promises / hold constructive and real talks with Abbas, we see the opposite happening. Abbas weakened and portrayed as a puppet in the face of Israeli abuses while Hamas is the only faction seen as resisting Israel.

[sana8410]

I wanted to cull this out. You in particular have made some excellent points, and put together a rational narrative over the last several years in support of a more balanced foreign policy in regards to the middle east. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, and I probably disagree more than agree with the sorts of practical actions that could happen (strategy issues), but no one with an IQ that reaches 3 digits could honestly say you haven't made a good case. And listening to the news, it appears 2 missiles were fired from Gaza to Israel before the ceasefire ended. This is certainly a winning strategy.

Well thank you very much. As for the people that I discuss the conflict with: They aren't my target audience. I usually engage with individuals who have very entrenched interests in the conflict. Tizanabi, Ghosthunter, Floppycock, etc were / are zionists (not used in any sort of conspiratorial or religious sense of the term, rather the political sense). Tizanabi flat out stated that he would 100% support anything that Israel ever did. Others like Mr. Baker are religious conservatives, thekinggov: neocons, and people like Verm, asfdxjhgdf, and Born2Run: racists / militants.It is for the Islamic Jihad (the group that appears to have fired them). They aren't interested in peace.

[zolace]

That's always been my stance since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. A separate productive discourse with Abbas in the West Bank focusing on West Bank specific peace plan promises and issues. As Palestinians get more of what they want / need and see progress on Palestinian state building through Abbas' tactics while things remain stagnant for Hamas, then that rather effectively politically marginalizes Hamas. Unfortunately as things stand now, in the face of Israeli administration refusal to halt settlement expansion or live up to any West Bank specific peace promises / hold constructive and real talks with Abbas, we see the opposite happening. Abbas weakened and portrayed as a puppet in the face of Israeli abuses while Hamas is the only faction seen as resisting Israel.

I think Abbas can't move this forward. Circumstance is what it is. But a strong business leader who isn't interested in war or extreme positions could use his support to get put into power, and do the needful. No guarantees, of course, but there is a decent chance.

It won't happen though, even though this still the most opportune time. It gets less opportune as time passes, and the window will eventually close once again for several years. Sadly.

[zolace]

Israel has a very capable government and is excellent at lobbying and propaganda, but I wonder how much of what we are seeing here in the US is from the Israeli government and how much is from pro-Israeli US lobby groups. Israel's strongest lobby base here are US conservative Christians.

Strategically, I see this as being the same thing. It goes back to Israel one way or the other, and the exact path is kind of irrelevant for my purposes. I mean, it's almost certainly funneled through US sources, but I would be surprised to hear it WASN'T traced back to Israel. If it were the IDF directly, that could backfire badly, and that would be a silly risk on their part.

[Rigon]

In these particular instances shouldn't the Palestinian authority or Hamas actively work to prevent these and punish those who defy cease-fires?

Or are they and it's not being reported?

[Rigon]

I honestly believe I could get an agreement worked out if I were representing the Palestinians.

This is really intriguing. How would you go about doing that (keeping all of the political pressures in mind)?

Not something perfect, but something that would be a start in the right direction. People need to start listening to the solid business leaders in Palestine, not the politicians. Some of those guys have the right advice.

Well that was tried under the Road Map to Peace Plan under Bush. Israel didn't play ball and refused to even halt settlement expansion let alone with moving forward to discuss a comprehensive deal. There isn't really any incentive for Israel to engage in any sort of peace plan that discusses borders, and every incentive for Israeli governments not to. If we're being realists here. Israel simply isn't and isn't likely to be a partner for peace given the make-up of their polity.

Well, I think the first problem is surviving past saying "hello". So long as the all the muscle is in the hands of the militants, of course this is impossible. They need someone like Munib al-Masri to take charge and find a way to bring in a group like the G8 ministers to talk business and peace, which is a language they all understand. And I honestly believe that that approach would defang the militants in Israel. As long as the Palestinians are looked at as genocidal and barbaric, they can't raise up from where they are. All they can hope to do is lower Israel a bit, and I don't see any value there. I think that has the best chance to get around what you said below.

I don't really see how this is 'pragmatic' given the history of the peace process. 2013 saw both the lowest level of rocket attacks on Israel ever recorded since the Gaza takeover and absolutely no progress in the area of peace talks. Likewise, peacetalks, and no progress prior to Hamas' takeover of Gaza and their subsequent use of mass rocket attacks. Both would seem to contradict your assertion that this would defang Israeli conservatives.
Side note: G7 now

It's pragmatic in that I don't see any other path. Part of the reason the rocket attacks slowed down was that people like the gentleman I mentioned and Israeli businessmen did try to get some trade going. But they didn't have the ability to hamper the only people in Palestine with muscle. So they inevitably lost. The way to defang Israel is to show the Western powers that the driving force is economics, and not religion, culture, or hatred. It would be a difficult path to stay on, but if handled properly it's virtually certain to succeed over time...barring unforeseen new issues. However, it would require educating the Palestinians on something beyond hatred, which I admit may be non-pragmatic. But my form of optimism says it could be done.

I don't see any path period. Israel isn't a partner for peace. As you stated they are perfectly content with the status quo (for now). The best course forward towards changing that would be to attempt to change US opinions on the subject and / or Israeli opinions on the subject, both of which requires a public and open discussion of the details of the conflict among the voter bases of said countries.

My thought process has nothing to do with Israel except peripherally. Someone like al-Masri will have excellent connections in London, New York, and Toronto...probably Germany and France as well. This hypothetical person has to use those types of connections to work directly with G7 countries...all of whom will jump at the chance to look good by welcoming Palestine into the group of civilized countries that want economic growth, not war. It would appeal to the hubris of the other 6 countries, and the US would say all their well laid plans are working out. It has a pretty good chance of working, and making Israel jump on the wagon or look very bad. Obviously this isn't what some parts of Israel wants, but it would be tough to stop.

I agree with this description, and I actually think that is really what is at the root of the current escalation in conflict. The Palestinians formed a unity government which is incredibly dangerous to Israel on an international diplomatic level and I think Israel was very perceptive of that. It historically has used Hamas to counter Fatah's diplomatic efforts. Unity threatened that vital mechanism, so Israel encouraged conflict or, rather, encouraged division by tightening the screws on Hamas via the blockade and by arbitrarily arresting hundreds of Hamas activists without charge or trial. The current conflict (though I wouldn't go so far as to suggest that Netanyahu was hoping to start a war like this) has been rather effective at leaning on the old political divide. I wonder if the unity government will survive this.

If so, that is pretty practical proof that it has potential as a strategy. Unfortunately, once the rockets start flying and the kidnappings/murders start, it all goes out the window. I honestly have no understanding of groups like Islamic Jihad. Their concept of life is too dramatically different than mine. I can accept that wars happen, but the idea is to try and find peace, while letting all sides have some dignity.

It's my biggest beef against Woodrow Wilson. But that's a different issue and a different war.

I think this economic track that you mentioned does have potential, which is why I think that Israel was so concerned with and threw such a fit over a Palestinian unity government despite the fact that it has been "calling" for one for years.

The kidnappings were simply something that Israel seized on as an excuse to target Hamas. Hamas denied responsibility for them and third parties even took credit for them publicly, but Netanyahu was content to blame Hamas anyway, even when it seemed most likely that the kidnappers were acting outside of organizational networks. This was just another stroke of propaganda brilliance that allowed them to target an existing threat: the unity government very aggressively without seeming to be instigating it.

[Rigon]

That's always been my stance since Hamas' takeover of Gaza. A separate productive discourse with Abbas in the West Bank focusing on West Bank specific peace plan promises and issues. As Palestinians get more of what they want / need and see progress on Palestinian state building through Abbas' tactics while things remain stagnant for Hamas, then that rather effectively politically marginalizes Hamas. Unfortunately as things stand now, in the face of Israeli administration refusal to halt settlement expansion or live up to any West Bank specific peace promises / hold constructive and real talks with Abbas, we see the opposite happening. Abbas weakened and portrayed as a puppet in the face of Israeli abuses while Hamas is the only faction seen as resisting Israel.

I think Abbas can't move this forward. Circumstance is what it is. But a strong business leader who isn't interested in war or extreme positions could use his support to get put into power, and do the needful. No guarantees, of course, but there is a decent chance.

It won't happen though, even though this still the most opportune time. It gets less opportune as time passes, and the window will eventually close once again for several years. Sadly.

That's my goal too, for the most part. I don't really care if Al Qaeda ever has dignity for example, but we can't and shouldn't allow Al Qaeda style cells disrupt a larger peace process between the main actors. Just like we shouldn't let settler violence stop it. Which is of course why it is vital to be able to distinguish between Hamas and these other smaller factions. Which Israel can, it just generally doesn't have any incentive to do so publicly.