Skip to main content

View Diary: The Israel/Palestine Impasse (47 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree vehemently (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JNEREBEL, Mannie

    Israel is likely to react the way South Africa reacted when faced with a serious boycott, and to take just as long to come around to that decision. Threatening violence, or even discussing violence as some sort of abstract good, is guaranteed to make things worse.

    How is it, O ratings guru, that threatening violence against individuals is HRable, but threatening violence against an entire country is supposed to be acceptable comment?

    Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

    by Mokurai on Wed May 07, 2014 at 01:19:16 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I am not threatening violence (0+ / 0-)

      I am providing analysis.  I agree with Slater's assessment that Israel making the concessions necessary to reach an agreement presents a risk of potentially violent internal conflict.  Do you agree with that assessment?

      I posit that Israel will act rationally according to game theory and that the way to move its leaders is to create conditions that make the risks associated with not doing a deal seem greater than the risks associated with doing a deal.

      It could be that a boycott serious enough to completely wreck the Israeli economy and cause civil unrest due to an economic depression might do the trick.  It might be that only a military threat may be effective.  In the past, I've suggested exploring the idea of refusing to do anything about any possible Iranian nuclear weapons program and declining to do anything to protect Israel from any repercussions should it decide to do something pro-active.

      This is a legitimate subject for foreign policy.  If any foreign policy that includes violence is off limits, then the site should be rigorously pacifist and oppose any military intervention for any reason.  Since that would be an obviously ridiculous way to run this site, I think my comment is within the range of permissible discourse.

      •  The South African economy was not wrecked (0+ / 0-)

        to the point of causing civil unrest due to an economic depression as a result of the boycott. The violence had been going on for years between Blacks and Whites. The only threats of White-against-White violence came after Mandela was let out of prison, from the Afrikaner Weerstandsbeweging (Afrikaner Resistance Movement). Little materialized.

        Back off, man. I'm a logician.—GOPBusters™

        by Mokurai on Wed May 07, 2014 at 07:26:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site