I only use “conundrum” when a dilemma as to a course of action presents itself which the intellect is unable to resolve. Visualize decision as to a course of action as being on an old time weight scale. Course X is competing with course Y. Every time enough evidence is placed on one of the pans of the scale to tilt decision in its favor, a counter argument is raised which begins to tilt in favor of the opposite pan. We do not have a dilemma which speaks to uncertainty, nor do we have an insoluble problem, as its solution can be achieved by definitively adding or deleting from one pan.

If you look at Martin Indyk’s quote, you have a classic conundrum as defined by this somewhat over bearing and bombastic quill and ink dualist (none of the humble correspondent stuff for me). Having defined Indyk’s statement as a conundrum, I immediately showed that it was not, by “taking off the pan” the fact that we had never negotiated with Hamas.

Thus, Indyk’s conclusion: “This is a situation that does not lend itself to a sensible policy” is invalidated, and immediately raises the question as what sensible policy is?… (there is my Germanic heritage, verb at the end of the sentence. Is there more to come?) .

And thus I bring in Paul Pillar, as being germane to the discussion. You will note, that I still have not expressed an opinion, for “germane” is to bring in material that is pertinent or relevant to the discussion.

I stand by my original post: I have presented no opinion, only provided information. I could reference the fact that a majority if Israelis believe negotiations with Hamas should be undertaken, but that would require a file or web search, and I will leave that to those who have an inquiring mind… I could point out that in Gaza, Hamas is a dully elected government, but then an exploration of our history of regime change of dully elected governments to protect democracy should be left to historians…

Conundrum is such a lovely word…

I only use “conundrum” when a dilemma as to a course of action presents itself which the intellect is unable to resolve. Visualize decision as to a course of action as being on an old time weight scale. Course X is competing with course Y. Every time enough evidence is placed on one of the pans of the scale to tilt decision in its favor, a counter argument is raised which begins to tilt in favor of the opposite pan. We do not have a dilemma which speaks to uncertainty, nor do we have an insoluble problem, as its solution can be achieved by definitively adding or deleting from one pan.

If you look at Martin Indyk’s quote, you have a classic conundrum as defined by this somewhat over bearing and bombastic quill and ink dualist (none of the humble correspondent stuff for me). Having defined Indyk’s statement as a conundrum, I immediately showed that it was not, by “taking off the pan” the fact that we had never negotiated with Hamas.

Thus, Indyk’s conclusion: “This is a situation that does not lend itself to a sensible policy” is invalidated, and immediately raises the question as what sensible policy is (there is my Germanic heritage, verb at the end of the sentence. Is there more to come?) .

And thus I bring in Paul Pillar, who argues that Hamas has to be a negotiating partner, as being germane to the discussion. You will note, that I still have not expressed an opinion, for “germane” is to bring in material that is pertinent or relevant to the discussion.

I stand by my original post: I have presented no opinion, only provided information. I could reference the fact that a majority if Israelis believe negotiations with Hamas should be undertaken, but that would require a file or web search, and I will leave that to those who have an inquiring mind… I could point out that in Gaza, Hamas is a dully elected government, but then an exploration of our history of regime change of dully elected governments to protect democracy I will leave to historians…

Conundrum is such a lovely word…

Lex, there’s no “almost” about it – We KNOW, how can we not(?), from all these years that nothing reasonable will come from Hamas. It’s elike “maybe this time when we walk into the lion enclosure they won’t try to eat us.” That kind of thinking gets you on the Darwin Awards.

Even here we have people who think that after 9/11 we needed to ‘understand’ the attackers, and perhaps we needed to talk to them and say ‘we’re sorry we upset’ them. Such thinking is despicable (I wish I could spell that the way Daffy Duck would say it). But it’s all wrong. It’s like dealing with kids: You have to set clear boundries and you have to punish transgressions. If you don’t do both, you get a sp0iled kid – in the case of international politics, you get endless simmering wars.

A time comes when enough is enough. That time came a long time ago in the case of Israel and its enemies, but the powers that be in our government, as they tend to do, wring their hands at the harsh solution, which is to let Israel, maybe with our help, settle the issue.

Given that, perhaps we can begin to understand the reluctance of Washington under it-doesn’t-matter-who to “pressure Israel” to make concessions to the people who keep shooting rockets into their country when they aren’t trying to send children across the border strapped with suicide belts.

I just find the assumption interesting that the only way forward is for Israel to negotiate under fire the terms of its continued existence with those who are committed to its destruction. It’s almost as though we know that nothing reasonable will come from the other side.

Excluding them doesn’t work,” Indyck told the Times, “and including them doesn’t work, either. So what do you do? This is a situation that does not lend itself to a sensible policy.”

Them, of course being Hamas.

The problem with Indyck statement, is that the second part of his statement (“and including them doesn’t work, either”) has never been tested.

More germane to this discussion is Paul Pillar’s statement, as quoted by Mr. Silverstein:

Engagement with Hamas is essential to any Israeli-Palestinian peace. Politically that’s a very hard position to take in this country–and impossible for this administration, which considers Hamas to be nothing more than a terrorist group. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is going to be difficult for the next president as well. Israel needs to be pushed to make concessions, and that’s a topic that we can’t seem to be able to discuss rationally in this country. Perhaps the only real chance that the topic can be approached is if the next president has a successful first term and is re-elected in 2012, and if the economy is strong. Maybe then he or she will decide to make the huge effort required to address the situation–it would require that level of favorable circumstance.

Who is Paul Pillarand what is he doing now? Sorry, you are going to have to go to Washington Babylon to find out.

http://harpers.org/archive/2008/03/hbc-90002538

Please note: I have presented no opinion, only provided information.