Having obsessively followed and argued about most matters Israeli-Palestinian for far too long, I was wondering if there was one easy heuristic which could be applied to most or all punditry on the matzav, to save effort for people who aren't so obsessed. Importantly, it has to work for punditry coming from most perspectives on the conflict, not just the side one happens to favor.
And this is what I've come up with:
Whenever you hear a proposed policy or plan for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and arguments as to why bad consequences are unlikely to result, you should assume that:
- The policy or plan in question has already been tried, and
- The bad consequences, which allegedly are unlikely to occur as a result, already have occurred as a result.
That is all.