Arguably I feel that information wars are harder to fight than ground wars. In combination the current misinformation flow is enlarged, the information never ever reach useful consensus. There are way too many opportunists involved in the money flow that continues to perpetuate the conflict.
The government leaders who are far from the front lines should embed their trusted deputies into the fray and observe first hand. These government leaders should be the only ones releasing opinions. At every missile launch station on both sides of the current conflict and in every Hamas cell these deputies would file reports. In every Israeli incursion these embedded deputies report to their supporting country's executive leadership (and to the not-supporting leadership) their findings. The deputies would be like referees calling fouls. This is never going to happen.
A proper counter offensive to the conflict could be mindful individuals working together to brainstorm a prefered outcome from a conflict that is going to end. I repeat, this current conflict will end. And the current conflict will end with an enormous number of combatants and noncombatants suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD will take many years, as well as a lifetime for many, to allow individuals to normalize and return to some sort of baseline in their communities.
In my view of an outcome, I propose that the outcome of this conflict is a one state solution for all combatants and noncombatant currently engaged in this conflict required to live together. Rogue mercenaries and weapon advisors would be told to leave. All weapon systems would be turned into plows, tanks into tractors, et cetera. The one state would be a tax free zone to attract rebuilding capital, think a world-wide Marshall Plan (1948). Large park complexes with hospitals and schools would be built over the worst hit centers of the conflict so the combatant and noncombatant residents will point with pride that they were the ones who overcame millenniums of conflict in their lifetime. What is your imagined best scenario outcome?
Steve - thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I agree with most of your points and it is important to make it clear that the conflict will end, but with many casualties and indeed a lot of PTSD.
My scenario for the best outcome? That would be a few newsletter instalments. For now let me just say that it cannot be a one-state solution. But I do think that you are correct that the eventual solution has to be found in trade, business, the economy at large. The world and in particular the Arab world can help bring this about. The focus needs to be on that rather than 'land'.
Pieter - thanks for thoughtful feedback. I just seems the combatants and their enabling nation state sponsors are entirely focused on 'land' and the rights of habitation without respect for their neighbors. Without forging a mutual and fluid cooperation to respect each other boundaries and more easily cross their border/boundaries this millenium old conflict is stuck until enough blood is shed to validate the conflict. And then there is only a pause. I respect your best outcome. Perhaps you might share an unfolding of such a scenario with your readers? Onwards.
Arguably I feel that information wars are harder to fight than ground wars. In combination the current misinformation flow is enlarged, the information never ever reach useful consensus. There are way too many opportunists involved in the money flow that continues to perpetuate the conflict.
The government leaders who are far from the front lines should embed their trusted deputies into the fray and observe first hand. These government leaders should be the only ones releasing opinions. At every missile launch station on both sides of the current conflict and in every Hamas cell these deputies would file reports. In every Israeli incursion these embedded deputies report to their supporting country's executive leadership (and to the not-supporting leadership) their findings. The deputies would be like referees calling fouls. This is never going to happen.
A proper counter offensive to the conflict could be mindful individuals working together to brainstorm a prefered outcome from a conflict that is going to end. I repeat, this current conflict will end. And the current conflict will end with an enormous number of combatants and noncombatants suffering from post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). PTSD will take many years, as well as a lifetime for many, to allow individuals to normalize and return to some sort of baseline in their communities.
In my view of an outcome, I propose that the outcome of this conflict is a one state solution for all combatants and noncombatant currently engaged in this conflict required to live together. Rogue mercenaries and weapon advisors would be told to leave. All weapon systems would be turned into plows, tanks into tractors, et cetera. The one state would be a tax free zone to attract rebuilding capital, think a world-wide Marshall Plan (1948). Large park complexes with hospitals and schools would be built over the worst hit centers of the conflict so the combatant and noncombatant residents will point with pride that they were the ones who overcame millenniums of conflict in their lifetime. What is your imagined best scenario outcome?
Steve - thanks for your thoughtful feedback. I agree with most of your points and it is important to make it clear that the conflict will end, but with many casualties and indeed a lot of PTSD.
My scenario for the best outcome? That would be a few newsletter instalments. For now let me just say that it cannot be a one-state solution. But I do think that you are correct that the eventual solution has to be found in trade, business, the economy at large. The world and in particular the Arab world can help bring this about. The focus needs to be on that rather than 'land'.
Pieter - thanks for thoughtful feedback. I just seems the combatants and their enabling nation state sponsors are entirely focused on 'land' and the rights of habitation without respect for their neighbors. Without forging a mutual and fluid cooperation to respect each other boundaries and more easily cross their border/boundaries this millenium old conflict is stuck until enough blood is shed to validate the conflict. And then there is only a pause. I respect your best outcome. Perhaps you might share an unfolding of such a scenario with your readers? Onwards.