This article is a weird mishmash of two articles: The first article argues that you should stick to your point and not needlessly piss people off. It's a fine

This article is a weird mishmash of two articles: The first article argues that you should stick to your point and not needlessly piss people off. It's a fine argument to make. If you're going to be incendiary in your writing it should be a deliberate choice. The second article is about Israel/Hamas. Anything that touches on that subject gets flagged here. I think the claim by Friedman and this blog author that Gaza could have chosen to be Dubai is absurd. But any discussion about that is verboten here. Did the author have to use Israel/Hamas to make his point that pissing people off needlessly is not strategic? No. And yet he did. Is this some kind of clever meta-self-sabotage?