Symbolism matters

You would have a point, a pretty good one in fact, if the Gaza Palestinians weren't still lobbing rockets into Israel and ruled by a political party that actively maintains its 'right' to destroy Israel. Blockades are an act of war but, in the hierarchy of warlike acts, actual use of offensive weapons, particularly ones that by design are more of a threat to the civilian population, trumps blockade.

You would have a point. But you don't.

You say I don't have a point, but it seems like you are only emphasizing my point, that this is a "a conflict dominated by mutual feelings of injustice," and I still think that argues for "the only solution [being] to offer occasional signs of good faith."

I mean, yeah, blockades can be a legitimate act of war, but then again, blockades can also be an indiscriminate attack on civilians, and therefore war crimes. This is not an area where anyone's interest is served by dealing only in black and white. If you are arguing that blocking pasta (but not lentils) somehow diminishes the threat to Israeli civilians, you didn't make that point very clearly. Also, if you are arguing that Israel is not using and has not "actual[ly] used offensive weapons, particularly ones that by design are more of a threat to the civilian population," you most decidedly don't have a point.

The Palestinians are angry at the way the Israelis treat them, so they elect anti-Israel leaders. The Israelis are upset at the way the Palestinians behave, so they elect anti-Palestinian leaders. Each side can point to a bad act by the other that has gone unpunished, and can proceed to undertake violent reprisal (which will itself require violent reprisal by the same supposed logic). This is a cycle that can only get worse. Unless, of course, someone decides to look at it not as Israelis-and-Palestinians, but as one big bunch of people trying to eke out a living. Treat the Palestinians humanely, and they'll be less supportive of the inhumane behavior of their leaders. And we might just be able to walk back this cycle of violence. And yes, Palestinian leaders could take that first step, too, but I don't feel as much of a religious or ethnic tie to them, so they are even less likely to take my advice. I also happen to think that well-established democracies can be held to a higher standard than emerging nations without established political traditions, for reasons I'll happily elaborate if asked.

This isn't just a matter of altruism. Israel would be a safer and happier place if it could find a peaceful settlement to the conflict. Escalating the conflict will clearly not do that, so it is clearly not in Israel's long-term interests. Following a path that leads to peace is the only way to ensure Israel's long-term survival, the further growth of the nation, and the future safety of its citizenry.

Israel is the (much) stronger party in this conflict. As such the Palestinians resort to guerrilla and terrorist tactics.
The reaction on this is in effect collective punishment (even if not intended). This strengthens the cause of the Palestinians fighting against the Israeli while painting the Israeli as the bad guys.
The only thing Israel can do to lessen that is to take the beating and not retaliate.

Mr. Rosenau, like all well meaning people makes the same mistake relative to the Palestinian/Israel conflict as do critics like James Earl Carter. Namely, that it's the Israelis being beastly towards the Palestinians that is fueling the dispute. The unfortunate fact is that this beastliness or other Palestinian supposed grievances has little to do with the dispute. The Palestinian position is very simple and uncomplicated, namely that the Government of Israel must agree to go out of business. As long as the Palestinians adhere to this position, no amount of reduced beastliness or addressing of Palestinians' supposed grievances will have the slightest effect. In fact, it is my position that the Government of Israel is not being nearly beastly enough to act as a deterrent to Palestinian terrorism. I would point to how the late and unlamented dictator of Syria, Hafaz Assad, handled a similar situation emanating out of the City of Hama, in which terrorists were planting bombs in Damascus and other Syrian cities. He had the town surrounded by several hundred artillery pieces and ordered a two day bombardment that killed in excess of 20,000 people. Brutal but effective as the planting of bombs ceased. This action was given the nomenclature Hama Rules by New York Times columnist Tom Friedman.

I'm physically repulsed by your endorsement of the slaughter of innocent civilians. My grandparents fled to America to escape pogroms far less horrific than what you endorse here. How do you sleep at night?

And what did I say to make you think my position is "that it's the Israelis being beastly towards the Palestinians that is fueling the dispute." My position is that all involved are acting beastly, and that this beastliness on all sides which perpetuates the conflict.

It's true that the position of some Palestinians is that Israel should be destroyed. It is the position of others that Israel is a neighbor to what they hope will be a stable Palestinian state. The former are dangerous, the latter to be encouraged. Indiscriminate attacks on Palestinian civilians weaken the latter and strengthen the former.

"This isn't just a matter of altruism. Israel would be a safer and happier place if it could find a peaceful settlement to the conflict."

Ok. What would you suggest? Two way street to arrive at a peaceful settlement and when one sides position is the other side gets pushed into the sea, it's tough to arrive at a solution. I agree with you that the example you provided is silly and non productive. I can't justify it without knowing more about the policy described.