What Freddie said.

And Kyle, really good piece. Got the proverbial cogs turning, in any case...

Actually, Paul, while the acting and dialogue and all that was quite good in The Sopranos, I felt that the overall plot--the multi-season plot--was rather flimsy. Not as flimsy as Lost, though. Lost may have had some over-plot that I'm just missing, but to me it seemed that the writers were impatient, introducing us to the Others much too soon and then floundering, uncertain what to do next. In an effort to create dynamic characters, they have instead created a cast of haphazard, inconsistent characters who rarely act out of consistent motive or even sensible self-motivation. I was quite enamored of the first season, but after that the show has lost me, no pun intended.

I think what I left out of the above post is the inability of writers these days to exercise patience. A good plot should be sustained to the breaking point. Take the Office for instance. Season Two was much too soon for Pam and Jim to kiss. I think of an earlier show, Northern Exposure, which exercised far, far more restraint and kept that sexual tension running between its two leads much, much longer.

Freddie,

I think I figured out what has rubbed me wrong about Max's call to write policy. I think the entire purpose of the thoughtful blog is to wax theoretical--to opine, of course, but in a somewhat detached, philosophical manner. To write policy suggestions is to leave this theoretical world, where one can at least be useful in spurring on conversation, and enter into the realm of the concrete.

Not only that, but policy suggestions are essentially futile. Policy makers could care less. One has a better chance arguing moral or philosophical points than they do laying out a policy approach. It is time better spent, which is why after my response to Max I felt as though I hadn't really said much, or had somehow wasted my time, but couldn't quite understand why...

Kyle, at the bottom of the post editor is the "Series" selection. When you start a new series you can just add a topic and that way others can respond within that topic...

Thanks, Max. I knew you were in Israel and made the logical (if misguided) leap.

Let's not get into a meta-debate here, please. Day one of the site, let's try to keep comments on the subject at hand and not on the commenters or writers. Thanks.

That's a rather vague "offer" though, Roque. Israel offered to do something...what? What did they actually do? What have they done since? Probably the greatest half-measure in their history: leaving Gaza. What a foolish thing to do while remaining in the West Bank. It brought them no closer to achieving two states.

Now I am not one to accuse Israel of war crimes as I sincerely believe that will do nothing to further the debate. But I am one to accuse them of consistent stupidity in their policy decisions. I have a great deal of hope for the vision of Israel, and I am well aware that there many feet at which to lay the blame, both Israelis and Arabs are at fault here.

But the Israeli's cannot offer to "do something" about the settlements. They just have to do it.

One quick caveat--though proportionality may be meaningless in determining how to wage these fights, or at least not the most important qualifier--it is still important to judge whether they are worth the fight, worth the fallout, or essentially effective in the long term. Then, too, there is the moral question of civilian death which must be addressed. To me, if Israel is intent on carrying out this sort of mission, they should be as focused or more so on doing something about the settlements which are a huge impediment to peace, or at least to a Two State solution.

The point being, that the Ottomans represent the natural evolution of an initially far more radical ideology. With power, with responsibility, with hegemony, came a liberalization and moderation that has since dissipated in the Arab world--in part due to the collapse of the Ottoman rule and the subsequent rise in nationalism. Hence we can see nationalism inflaming a more radical Islamism and the two working in tandem, fanning each others' flames.

I disagree, Roque. At one point the Ottoman's ruled the region, with their own brand of Islamism, and they were able to trade and dialogue with the West. In some respects, the very moderation of the Ottoman Islamism was what made them great and lasting. It also proves that such a society can exist, and could exist again.

Actually, Chris, that might be an interesting series. What replaces the sense of proportional warfare in non-state conflicts? etc. etc.

I agree, though, it becomes almost entirely meaningless in these situations. There is always a good deal to question in regards to the wisdom of too brutal a retaliation, or the wisdom in firing off rockets randomly at civilian populations, because the reaction of your adversary is such an unknown...

So, in conclusion, your sanctimonious even-handedness and constant reminders of your enlightened liberal morality are only playing into the hands of the enemies of this very enlightened liberal morality.

Roque, we're working on a comment policy for the site, but in short, we expect our writers and our commenters to be respectful and act with some level of common courtesy. You are free to disagree and make your point, but do all you can to please refrain from ad hominem, name-calling, etc. Your perspective is appreciated, but your tone is not.

They cannot be negotiated with insofar as their Islamicism—just as we cannot be negotiated with insofar as our Western values. The point of Roy’s piece and your agreement with it is to legitimize Hamas. This cannot happen as long as they adhere to their Islamist world view.

So, essentially you're saying that they will not negotiate their Islamist world view any more than we would our Western--and we cannot dialogue with them until they have given that up.

So...you're saying, in so many words, we can't dialogue ever because they will never give up their world view, and that is a world view that we can never dialogue with. I disagree entirely. They live in their world, and we in ours. We can meet at the same table with two world views and find either common ground or not. How will we know until it's actually attempted?

And keep everything open and transparent. Demand accountability, unlike the debacle with Arafat and his cronies...Require more transparency then we do of our own financial system...

Roque--

I have to wonder whether you are commenting on this piece or on the article you link to.

I think Hamas must be dealt with diplomatically in part to expose them, let their views be heard and challenged in the global theatre. If they don't moderate those views, approaches, etc. then world sympathy will not lie with them, and the Palestinians will have more of a reason to chuck them entirely.

And yes, there is a major distinction between jihadists waging war for a global caliphate and nationalists like Hams, even if Hamas borrows extensively from the others' rhetoric and recruiting tactics.

Bob, Dreher's "crunchy con" theme is sort of granola-conservatives--think socially conservative hippies. I think my take is slightly more practical than Rod's because he advocates such a move toward pre-modernism, whereas Scott and myself and others advocate more of a balanced approach.

Keith, I think marijuana would no longer be a gateway drug simply due to the elimination of the dealer from the sale. The dealer is often a purveyor of more than merely weed--often offering harder drugs, or knowing of connections to other dealers who might be able to provide those other drugs. This is essentially why alcohol is not really a gateway drug. If it were illegal, however, the booze pusher might very well also push coke, LSD, or worse...

Chris--excellent post. I hadn't even considered the rise of a state-cartel, but it's an interesting notion to be sure...

Killer-weak-sweet.

Seems to be working...

Freddie:

This is crucial because, as almost anyone will tell you, only America ultimately can broker peace in Palestine. This is because the deep economic, military and diplomatic investment of the United States in Israel gives us the power to deeply influence Israeli policy moving forward.

I think this is absolutely correct.

This is a test comment, by the way, or else I'd go into a bit more depth--though in all honesty, the purpose of this project is to go in to depth in the follow-up posts. So perhaps I wouldn't.

Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3....