The more moderate position thus becomes Netanyahu’s...

Without knowing any other context, this line sums up all one needs to know. Any time any of Netanyahu's views can be described as "more moderate" than such and such's view, we know we are in a profoundly absurd situation. The reactionary (I don't like the word radical for right wingers, as is used in the article) Right has hijacked this issue to such an extent that we can't even have a civil debate about reasonable policy positions that might actually work without being labeled some sort of extreme leftist. Saying that humans deserve to be treated with basic dignity has now become the domain of radicals and tree hugging idealists, instead of humanists and pragmatists.

We observe parallel tracks in Israel and the US, with the right wing media completely destroying anything that could be considered a policy debate. We could almost cut and past sentences from the Israel-Palestine conflict with the so call austerity debate here. It's not about conflict resolution or reason; it's about power and a sick brand of morality, where the haves must show their moral superiority over the have-nots. This won't change anytime soon. This is the down side of a free press--the freedom to practice yellow journalism as a for profit enterprise.

ButterflyEffect recently posted The Science of Hatred

In this fascinating read, the author says:

In Israel, where violence has waxed and waned for generations, where peace will appear within reach and then out of grasp, hoping for reconciliation seems like wishing for a miracle. Yet after talking to Halperin you feel as if it might be possible. In a study he wrote with Carol S. Dweck, a professor of psychology at Stanford University known for her research on motivation and self-regulation, he asked Israelis whether they would be willing to discuss compromise on contentious issues such as Jewish settlements on the West Bank and the status of Jerusalem. Before they asked those questions, they gave some subjects articles to read about how people are capable of change. The articles did not mention Israel or Palestine. The point was to plant in their minds the notion that groups don’t necessarily hold fixed traits and perspectives, that their positions can be malleable. How could a few articles accomplish anything when Israelis read about discord every day? Yet Halperin and Dweck found that the subjects who had read the articles were more willing than the control group to discuss compromise.

“If we start taking a critical view … then there’s hope.”

Methods like Halperin’s might create an atmosphere in which the two sides would be prepared to reconcile. Halperin and Dweck tried the identical experiment with Greek and Turkish subjects living on the contested island of Cyprus, and again found that it worked: They became less rigid. Reading, in general, about how people can change seemed to make them more optimistic about their specific conflict.

This is a really interesting concept and seems like a valid first step of longer solution. There is so much deep-seeded hatred that spans so many generations. I would be interested in knowing how realistic something like this is? It seems you can get political leaders together as much as you want, but the major issue and debates and conflict truly remains in the hands of the population.

I'm pretty ignorant about this topic so if anyone has anything else to say, I would be interested in hearing about it.