This summer's spat between Israel and Hezbollah renewed alarmist talks of the much-hyped "clash of civilizations" predicted by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. America's extensive role in Middle East politics was supposed to incite a large-scale war against Israel. But one has to go back through nine months of newspaper archives to find a report of a suicide bombing within Israeli borders. In the Palestinian territories, Hamas has completely failed as a political organization, and a more moderate government is in the works. There is probably some trite saying involving danger being the combination of crisis and opportunity that applies to the current situation, but it suffices to say that the Arab-Israeli conflict is changing in nature. Back in January 2006, Hamas elites harnessed widespread anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments and easily won parliamentary elections over the Fatah party. The West looked on in despair as our celebrated tools of democracy were used to empower an organization whose central concern is "the fight against Jews." With Hamas at the helm, the potential for diplomacy quickly vanished. Over the past year, the United States and the European Union responded with strict economic sanctions on foreign aid to the extremist Palestinian government. As tens of thousands of government workers gradually lost their salaries, a grassroots anti-Hamas movement developed, culminating in large protests in the Gaza Strip, which Hamas militants tried — and failed — to silence with bullets. As you read this, Palestinians are in the midst of negotiations to create a government that protects instead of exploits its citizens. The lesson for Hamas? Fostering an atmosphere of fear and ethnic hatred can win elections, but a platform of Nazi mimicry is insufficient to maintain an effective government. Moderates of all religions have long stared blankly at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unwilling to succumb to the intense nationalism of Israeli conservatives but outright rejecting the terrorist methods Hamas uses in protest. When lasting peace is the goal, how can we choose between a massive wall disrupting the lives of two million Palestinians and the horrific suicide bombings of Israeli civilians? Ultimately, it's a false dichotomy. The suicide bombings in Israel have ended, and Hamas is preparing to cede its power to more moderate voices within the Palestinian territories. Israel's government is also operating with pitiful approval ratings, and calls to cease strikes in the Gaza Strip are prevalent in Israeli newspapers. It's no longer possible to discuss the security of Israel without addressing the welfare of Palestinian citizens. There is potential to make serious progress here, and the ball is in Israel's court. As a start, Israeli Defense Forces can cease their failed attempts to use force to wipe out Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Setting the moral qualms of civilian deaths aside, the recent IDF operations are strategic failures that give legitimacy to the extremist factions that use suicide bombers to retaliate. As the Palestinian Authority crumbles and eventually reforms, government officials will be forced to decide where they stand on the continued existence of Israel. By ending its failed military campaign, Israel can create an atmosphere where a receptive Palestinian unity government can form. Israel can also close the majority of roadblocks and checkpoints that disrupt the daily lives of the millions of people living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And though it may not happen in the near future, the dismantling of the wall between Arab and Israeli settlements would be a landmark achievement and fatal blow to extremist voices on both sides. These mechanisms prevent economic stability in the Palestinian territories and foster the destructive unemployment on which Hamas builds its support. As President Olmert of Israel and President Bush conclude their talks this week, they must recognize the importance of holding negotiations. Officials from Hamas or Syria were once considered to be off-limits for U.S. and Israeli diplomats, but now these talks are nothing short of imperative. Iran's overarching influence stretches from Baghdad to Beirut, but it is built on tenuous support from Arab leaders who fear American missiles dropped from Israeli planes. Olmert and Bush can do nothing better than propose a multilateral discussion like that which resulted in the well-intentioned but flawed Oslo Accords. Ultimately, the voices calling for blind support of the operations of the IDF are inadvertently giving legitimacy to Hamas. Conversely, those who support the Hamas-led Palestinian resistance are partially responsible for the misadventures of the IDF, including the most recent slaughter of 18 civilians in the Gaza Strip. The cycle of fear-mongering ends when moderate voices recognize mutual goals and tune out calls for isolationist and combative policies. Here at the University of Wisconsin, the latest attempt by Al-Aywa to divest from Israel represents the latest attempt to reduce dialogue to pointless shouting. Asking the Board of Regents to divest from Israel due to human rights violations sets a standard that would require the UW-System to divest from essentially every non-Scandanavian country, the United States included. Hillel and its spectrum of political groups should respond by co-sponsoring discussions with Al-awda and the Muslim Students' Association. Events like these take place every week at college campuses across America, and the university must support programming that encourages respectful debate on current events. "Peace in the Middle East" is so far off that it no longer carries meaning. And those who see a bombastic "clash of civilizations" are equally guilty of idealizing the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both catchphrases resort to the fatalistic rhetoric of a generation itching to write a concluding sentence to an unfinished paragraph. Absolute peace may be an abstract idea at this point, and absolute war often seems certain, but recent developments show that productive dialogue is both possible and inevitable. Daniel Tenenbaum ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science, international studies and history.This summer's spat between Israel and Hezbollah renewed alarmist talks of the much-hyped "clash of civilizations" predicted by Harvard professor Samuel Huntington. America's extensive role in Middle East politics was supposed to incite a large-scale war against Israel. But one has to go back through nine months of newspaper archives to find a report of a suicide bombing within Israeli borders. In the Palestinian territories, Hamas has completely failed as a political organization, and a more moderate government is in the works. There is probably some trite saying involving danger being the combination of crisis and opportunity that applies to the current situation, but it suffices to say that the Arab-Israeli conflict is changing in nature. Back in January 2006, Hamas elites harnessed widespread anti-American and anti-Israeli sentiments and easily won parliamentary elections over the Fatah party. The West looked on in despair as our celebrated tools of democracy were used to empower an organization whose central concern is "the fight against Jews." With Hamas at the helm, the potential for diplomacy quickly vanished. Over the past year, the United States and the European Union responded with strict economic sanctions on foreign aid to the extremist Palestinian government. As tens of thousands of government workers gradually lost their salaries, a grassroots anti-Hamas movement developed, culminating in large protests in the Gaza Strip, which Hamas militants tried — and failed — to silence with bullets. As you read this, Palestinians are in the midst of negotiations to create a government that protects instead of exploits its citizens. The lesson for Hamas? Fostering an atmosphere of fear and ethnic hatred can win elections, but a platform of Nazi mimicry is insufficient to maintain an effective government. Moderates of all religions have long stared blankly at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, unwilling to succumb to the intense nationalism of Israeli conservatives but outright rejecting the terrorist methods Hamas uses in protest. When lasting peace is the goal, how can we choose between a massive wall disrupting the lives of two million Palestinians and the horrific suicide bombings of Israeli civilians? Ultimately, it's a false dichotomy. The suicide bombings in Israel have ended, and Hamas is preparing to cede its power to more moderate voices within the Palestinian territories. Israel's government is also operating with pitiful approval ratings, and calls to cease strikes in the Gaza Strip are prevalent in Israeli newspapers. It's no longer possible to discuss the security of Israel without addressing the welfare of Palestinian citizens. There is potential to make serious progress here, and the ball is in Israel's court. As a start, Israeli Defense Forces can cease their failed attempts to use force to wipe out Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Setting the moral qualms of civilian deaths aside, the recent IDF operations are strategic failures that give legitimacy to the extremist factions that use suicide bombers to retaliate. As the Palestinian Authority crumbles and eventually reforms, government officials will be forced to decide where they stand on the continued existence of Israel. By ending its failed military campaign, Israel can create an atmosphere where a receptive Palestinian unity government can form. Israel can also close the majority of roadblocks and checkpoints that disrupt the daily lives of the millions of people living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. And though it may not happen in the near future, the dismantling of the wall between Arab and Israeli settlements would be a landmark achievement and fatal blow to extremist voices on both sides. These mechanisms prevent economic stability in the Palestinian territories and foster the destructive unemployment on which Hamas builds its support. As President Olmert of Israel and President Bush conclude their talks this week, they must recognize the importance of holding negotiations. Officials from Hamas or Syria were once considered to be off-limits for U.S. and Israeli diplomats, but now these talks are nothing short of imperative. Iran's overarching influence stretches from Baghdad to Beirut, but it is built on tenuous support from Arab leaders who fear American missiles dropped from Israeli planes. Olmert and Bush can do nothing better than propose a multilateral discussion like that which resulted in the well-intentioned but flawed Oslo Accords. Ultimately, the voices calling for blind support of the operations of the IDF are inadvertently giving legitimacy to Hamas. Conversely, those who support the Hamas-led Palestinian resistance are partially responsible for the misadventures of the IDF, including the most recent slaughter of 18 civilians in the Gaza Strip. The cycle of fear-mongering ends when moderate voices recognize mutual goals and tune out calls for isolationist and combative policies. Here at the University of Wisconsin, the latest attempt by Al-Awda to divest from Israel represents the latest attempt to reduce dialogue to pointless shouting. Asking the Board of Regents to divest from Israel due to human rights violations sets a standard that would require the UW-System to divest from essentially every non-Scandanavian country, the United States included. Hillel and its spectrum of political groups should respond by co-sponsoring discussions with Al-awda and the Muslim Students' Association. Events like these take place every week at college campuses across America, and the university must support programming that encourages respectful debate on current events. "Peace in the Middle East" is so far off that it no longer carries meaning. And those who see a bombastic "clash of civilizations" are equally guilty of idealizing the Arab-Israeli conflict. Both catchphrases resort to the fatalistic rhetoric of a generation itching to write a concluding sentence to an unfinished paragraph. Absolute peace may be an abstract idea at this point, and absolute war often seems certain, but recent developments show that productive dialogue is both possible and inevitable. Daniel Tenenbaum ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in political science, international studies and history.