George Jochnowitz wrote:

@ CK MacLeod:
You certainly stick to your guns.

George Jochnowitz wrote:

If you believe Jews kill children to use their blood for ritual purposes, no peace with them or their state is ever possible.

Well of course it's possible. Just add a codicil to the next treaty calling for sharesies on the best blood.

Whatever the viewers of such a TV show draw from its depiction of fictional Jewish conspiracies of 100 years ago, maybe it undermines attitudes toward Israel, but it doesn't qualify as instigation.

@ George Jochnowitz:
Only by a broad definition of "instigation" - one that would term all anti-semitic/anti-Zionist conspiracism as "instigation" against the modern day state of Israel. Again, by that definition a lot that goes on in this country, in government, at certain politically motivated and involved TV stations, and in many of the comments at this blog, qualifies as anti-Muslim "instigation." Much done and said in Israel, including by members of various Israeli governments including the current one, could also be called instigation.

@ George Jochnowitz:
It's obviously a judgment call as to whether a foul, racist, conspiracist, etc., depiction of Israel or the Jews amounts to "instigation." Are all of the people in this country - including people in government or hoping to be - who say foul, conspiracist, etc., things about Muslims or Democrats or the President guilty of "instigation"? Possibly, but we tend to allow and tolerate that kind of speech, applying the term more narrowly - not "x is evil and a threat to all that's good" but "let's all go do a, b, and c to destroy x."

George Jochnowitz wrote:

Israel ignores these violations for the sake of maintaining peace.

What is Israel supposed to do about another country's TV shows? And are you sure that the treaty with Egypt includes anything on that subject?

I don't really disagree with you, except maybe in thinking there might be more moving parts of significance than Iran. Anyway, we're just speculating, seeing what sense their might be in the Economist position. So far, we've been focusing on negative pressure against the Israelis... All of the tools at US disposal means all of the tools at US disposal... that also means putting together a deal with lots in it for lots of people... and that happens also to target Iran...

...and, back on the previous point, another crisis of significance would find BHO with his domestic agenda mostly in the rear view mirror...

fuster wrote:

Do you see the people in Congress going along with any plan that Netanyahu rails against at any time before the 2012 elections?

Only if public opinion turns... after nearly five decades of pro-Israeli near-consensus it would take something dramatic... but somewhere the Israelis must know that if and when that consensus breaks, it may never return... it's not wise for them to risk even risking the risk of the risk... if you know what I mean... up until recently, they've seemed to understand that... do they still? If so, then they can be pressured... if not, then maybe they need to be...

@ fuster:
Would clearly require a Prez and Admin that had a plan, that had a good number of bipartisan gray-hairs lined up, that was ready to sell, that picked the right moment... If it was going to involve pressuring the Israelis, might need the next Flotilla embarrassment, or other crisis. So far, I don't think Israel's international slippage and slippage among the opinion elite - even former Peretzniks - has penetrated American public opinion. Clearly it would be a very risky thing for the Admin to be seen aligning itself with all the people "we" hate against the country "we" like, and that's also clearly how the Rs are prepared to portray any wavering from the Likud line.

So it's a wicky sticket. But if the general analysis is correct, then a crisis of some type is inevitable.

@ fuster:
It would depend upon how intent the Izzys (and others) were on calling the U.S. bluff, and how much the U.S. was really bluffing. And vice versa. The main conceptual difference would be no longer starting from the premise that the kids can settle their fight themselves. First one to whine, goes for a timeout. The other gets ice cream.

@ fuster:
As for the proposal, I don't think the idea is the US and several leading allies draw up the new map, then declare it the new reality as of the following Monday. I think the idea is that the US delineates the desired end state and acceptable transition points - say, Barak plan + reasonable adjustments or some such, West Bank first if necessary, etc. - and then wields all diplomatic and political tools trying to make it real.

@ fuster:
An ugly picture, but such pretty pictures! Those Hezbollah guys should be practicing for the Rose Parade, not for mass immolation. Oh well.

Word to the wise, unless you have a really slow connection, those FP listicles are always easier to read if you click "Single Page" up near the top.

@ fuster:
Well, maybe I should have said "an imposed peacierness."

It would be an imposed peace between Israel and "The Palestinians" - the latter to be defined as far as the world was concerned as the citizens of the new Palestinian state. Everyone else would be a pretender. It would also presumably coincide, or be intended to coincide, with recognition of Israel and ratified peace between Israel and all or most Arab states.

Quite likely, I think, this imposed peacierness would also be imposed warrishness to some uncertain extent, between and among various parties who might not like the idea much. The assumption is that the imposed w-ness would be cheaper than the likely w-ness in the absence of action.

@ fuster:
Same thing, as far as they're concerned - no?

I was a bad boy, and excerpted this piece before I had read it in full. The Economist's straightforward call for an imposed peace - the rest of the article - may be more interesting than its depiction of the threat of war.

@ George Jochnowitz:
Not a triviality, but proof of the depth of faith. This psychology is hardly unique to Hezbollah. It's the sacrifice we're willing to make that proves to us how strongly we believe in, and deserve, the blessings.