The mental block I have, and the mistake I keep making, is this: I assume that the ZAP is being presented as a moral imperative...
Interesting question. Remember, words have meaning. "Moral" has a lot of baggage, so I try to use "ethical" instead, but that does not get us out of the woods. Far more ambiguous is the word "imperative." That sounds like something you have to do. The ZAP, is more like much of the Ten Commandment and the Bill of Rights. It is written in the negative. It is less about what you
must do, than about what you must
not do.
Since we are using human language, it is not possible to cover every possible situations
where and when force may be initiated. It will always be a best fit approximation of an underlying principle. Just as Newtonian mechanics represent reality to a very high degree, it is not an ultimate description of reality. Relativity takes care of some edge cases very well, but it too is not an ultimate description of reality. Quantum mechanics clears up some even more arcane issues about reality, but maybe string theory or something else will inch us a bit closer to reality. You never get to your goal of total knowledge, but by successive approximation, you do get ever closer.
So, a good starting place in ethics is the Golden Rule. It works a very high percentage of the time in the real world. The fact that everyone is unique leads to edge cases such as S&M, however. The ZAP clears up those cases quite handily, but issues about what is "force" and degrees of response and how long we may take to respond, etc. are still at issue. I brought in the common law concepts of assault and battery in attempt to give a better approximation of the application of the ZAP. This brought up edge issues about time, degree and the use/application of voluntary dispute resolution. And so it goes.
I am certain that though the ZAP is a work in progress, it is very good statement of an underlying principle of human interaction. This is no different than believing that there are underlying physical laws of the universe, even though all we have ever done is describe successive approximations that work within a range of circumstances.
... which dumps me into the following syllogism -
if the ZAP is a moral imperative, applicable and compulsory in all times and places,
then it is possible to impose peace in the Middle East without resorting to the initiation of force.
The absurdity of the conclusion presumably matches the magnitude of my misconception.
I don't know if your conclusion is is absurd, but I see one big error in your second premise. "
Imposing peace" is an oxymoron. At least if by "imposing" you mean "initiating force." (If you mean something else, please be more specific.) Otherwise, it is like positing a an irresistible force existing in the same universe as an immovable object. It is a contradiction at the most fundamental level.
In any case, I hope the concept of the ZAP as a process of successive approximation helps make things clearer. There will always be edge cases that cause us or arbiters to further examine, define and distinguish the ZAP as it applies now and after.
One final thought. If you lived the rest of your life, operating under the first approximation of the ZAP (or even the Golden Rule, for that matter), there will be very few, if any, clarifications needed to live a highly ethical life.