hard heads soft hearts |
|
a scratch pad for half-formed thoughts by a liberal political junkie who's nobody special. ''Hard Heads, Soft Hearts'' is the title of a book by Princeton economist Alan Blinder, and tends to be a favorite motto of neoliberals, especially liberal economists. mobile
Archives
June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 October 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 April 2003 December 2003 June 2004 September 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 March 2005 April 2005 June 2005 August 2005 January 2006 February 2006 January 2009 April 2009 June 2009 July 2009 August 2009 November 2009 January 2010 February 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010 September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 January 2013 March 2013 May 2013 June 2013 December 2013 February 2014 June 2014 November 2014 August 2015 January 2016 April 2016 April 2017 July 2018 December 2018 September 2019 December 2019 August 2020 January 2021 October 2021 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 October 2022 December 2022 January 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 September 2024 October 2024 Short List: Brad Delong Yahoo Long List: Arthur Silber The Note Arts and Letters Daily Andrew Tobias Daily Howler Talking Points Memo New Republic Armed Liberal Eschaton Eric Alterman Slate Salon TAPPED David Corn (Nation) BuzzFlash Max Sawicky Oliver Willis InstaPundit Patrick Ruffini National Review Weekly Standard Amygdala BartCop Andrew Sullivan Drudge Report Romenesko Media News Matt Yglesias Daily Kos MyDD PLA William Burton Matt Welch CalPundit ArgMax Hullabaloo Pandagon Ezra Klein Paul Krugman Dean Baker TomPaine Progressive Michael Barone James Howard Kunstler Pundits & Editorial Pages NY Times Washington Post LA Times USA Today Washington Times Boston Globe Stanley Crouch Jonah Goldberg Molly Ivins Robert Novak Joe Conason Gene Lyons WSJ Best of the Web Jim Pinkerton Matt Miller Cynthia Tucker Mike Luckovich "What's New" by Robert Park Old Official Paul Krugman New Official Paul Krugman Unofficial Paul Krugman Center on Budget & Policy Priorities Washington Monthly Atlantic Monthly |
Sunday, June 23, 2002
Anyway, concerning Israel, I was struck by a recent Jonathan Chait piece in which he asserted that the current Palestinian conventional wisdom goes something like "it may take a long time, but eventually if we hang tough the Israelis will cry Uncle and give us everything we want." Currently, the only idea the Israeli left has is to build a wall, unilaterally withdraw from 75% of the West Bank, stop the suicide bombings as much as possible, and wait till the Palestinians are ready to negotiate. This is not a terrible approach, though the major caveat is that no one knows if a wall would really stop terrorism (especially if Israeli Arabs get radicalized.) Anyway, here's my possible suggestion: The key point of the current crisis is both sides are determined to outlast the other guy. Here is how the Israelis can tip the stalemate in their favor: Suppose an Israeli Labour leader were to propose a very generous peace plan (lets call it "Taba plus") as the *maximum* the Palestinians were *ever* going to get , though some details/parameters were amenable to negotiation. And suppose this Labor leader were to give the Palestinian leadership a certain amount of time (three months?) to agree to call off the intifada, and began negotiations for a final status agreement within the general framework of "Taba plus". What happened if the deadline passed and the Palestinians had not budged? Then the generous "Taba plus" plan would be made somewhat less generous, with this "modified Taba plus" plan being announced as the *new* maximum the Palestinians would *ever* get. In other words, by dithering/making war for past three months, they had sacrificed something (however small that "something" might be) *permanently*. A new deadline could be issued on the basis of "modified Taba plus", and if that deadline passed, then the maximum the Palestinians would *ever* get would be ratcheted down still further, and a new deadline would be issued, and so on. . . I hope I have been clear enough so that you can see what I'm getting at. Right now the Palestinians are thinking "if we wait for a long time, we can get everything." If an Israeli labor leader were to adopt this "permanent deadline" policy, however, then the Plaestinian thinking might change to: "if we act quickly, we can get (almost) everything. If we wait, we will get much much less." I.e. it adds an urgency to Palestinian desire for peace, plus it gives Israelis an incentive to wait it out. |