certainly must follow the advice of fiction writers when dealing with strategic matters. also poets when dealing with geo-political matters.

The arch sarcasm of the above commenter is a fine example of the tone of a twit confident in assessing the value of other people's lives. To sneer at an esteemed intellectual, a man who has spent his years in an effort to do justice in imagining the lives of others, merely because he sues for peace and hopes to avert unnecessary death and every mortification that comes with it--starvation, orphanhood, bodily mutilations and the disfigurements of grief and vengeance--to sneer at this effort as if it were a symptom of dreamy childishness is the mark of a shallow and base soul. I imagine that this commenter daily congratulates himself and his invisible "we" on their realism, their knowing and pragmatic approach to "conflict." Let "us" hope that he's not among the "we" who actually deal with the difficult resolutions of conflicts and their aftermath. Let's hope he's a failed poet.

I'm not quite sure why you refer to anon @7:47 a 'twit'. Usually it is some form of insecurity that causes folks like you to berate those with whom you disagree as such.

Feb. 9 2007

http://www.forward.com/articles/10055/
According to Halevy, Israel should take up Hamas’s offer of a long-term truce and try negotiating, because the Islamic movement is respected by Palestinians and generally keeps its word. He pointed to the cease-fire in attacks on Israel that Hamas declared two years ago and has largely honored. “They’re not very pleasant people, but they are very, very credible,” Halevy said.

I can't believe Halevy actually thinks that accepting a 10-year hudna with Hamas is actually a good idea, just because he thinks Hamas will keep its word.  It will also keep its word about never accepting Israel's right to exist and establishing an Islamic theocracy in its place through violent struggle.  Halevy should personally tell every Israeli boy in 3rd grade that they'll get to walk into a meat-grinder when they graduate from high school so that we can have ten years of "calm".

I'm with the first commenter here.  I wouldn't want A.B. Yehoshua operating on me just because he wrote "Open Heart".  What is it about diplomacy and security studies that the unqualified always feel qualified?

Writers of fiction are prone to the belief that they are qualified because their vocation demands that they assume the mindsets of the characters they invent. Therefore, they act with the conceit that their minds aren't bound by biases and preconceived notions, that they in fact are best able to understand the motivations of adversaries, and thus are in the best position to see the "big picture".

Amos Oz lays this out in detail in "How to Cure a Fanatic".

The commenter's issues regarding the soundness of literary figures' opinions on foreign affairs and security matters are well-taken. Harold Pinter, Norman Mailer, etc.--I get it.  However, there was no small amount of literary figures in the 1930's whose support for the fight against fascism was absolutely right-on. There is no reason to categorically dismiss the opinions of artists and writers on political affairs.

At no point was it suggested that their policy prescriptions are worth adopting wholesale, but rather that the notion of trying to inspire Palestinian civil society pressure against Hamas is an excellent idea. Plausibility is no doubt in question, as I noted, however in these situations, prior to an idea being introduced into the consciousness of a group, plausibility is always nil. An idea must take root before momentum can build.

"but rather that the notion of trying to inspire Palestinian civil society pressure against Hamas is an excellent idea. "

as long as Fatah can't deliver anything, you cant get rid of Hamas. It feeds on discontent. Palestinian civil society will be inspired by removal of roadblocks, freezing settlements, obvious things that Israel won't do.