quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
thats a purdy naive statement, dave-o.
I don't think so. I don't even think I'm being overly idealistic. My take on the situation is this: Israel's imperative is security, Palestine's is nationhood, and on top of that there are overlapping territorial claims.

These things are not irresolvable, and not mutually exclusive.

In negotiations, its a credo that if both sides walk away from a settlement of a dispute dis-satisfied, then there is a fair resolution. All dispautes have capable resolution - the resolve to bring a resolution is as equally important as the resolve to stand by your decision.

The parties in this dispute are used to negotiating from a position of brinksmanship. Brinksmanship would ordinarily lead to exhaustion. But because both sides (Israel from the US, the Pals from the Arab states) are supported financially, diplomatically and militarily by third parties, exhaustion hasn't occurred. Instead, the intervention of third parties provides greater resources to the dispute, as well as moral vindication ("we're right, and we must be because others support us").

My dad used to say, from a position of ignorance and racism, things like,"Put a wall around them and give them all guns, that'll solve the problem." In reality, this often works - Nigeria is a classic example, where an internal armed disputes with the ethic minority was cleanly resolved, after third parties stopped interfering, and without the violence and genocide forseen against the ethnic minority.

The alternative is that if you are going to interfere, interfere properly and responsibly. Lets use a wrestling analogy. Get in there and separate the parties, like a ref in the ring. don't stand by and claim to be the ref, but keep handing one wrestler a baseball bat.

This is what I mean by "right and wrong". I think both parties have equally valid concerns. I think both parties are trying to resolve their issues inappropriately, and they are egged on by irresponsible third parties.

were the situation patently obvious, it would've been solved.

[/qb][/quote]

This is what is patently obvious about it

there's been fighting in that region since before there was a 'united states'
[/qb][/quote]

Eh? You mean the Crusades? The Ottoman Empire had fighting in Central Asia. There was not a fear and loathing of a Jewish state until the Jewish state was created.

quote:


-- i dont think it could be solved by a simple judge judy trial (and she's the boss, apple sauce!).

its simply rediculously complicated.

I remember footage of Clinton coming out of Camp David, shaking his head and saying, "Its just so hard."

Judge Judy imposes a resolution. Mediation requires the parties ot find a resolution with the assistance of a third party.

quote:


i'm not saying that we're currently (or have ever) made the right or most-benevolent moves in the situation. im sure there's always some form of political campaigning and all that other two-faced stuff.

but i am saying its not as simple as saying "the lakers won the nba championship game, they're the better team." its not cut and dry -- its cut and cut.

quote:
And world opinion is not something the US has ever been bothered by, anyway
guh?! [eh?]

As in, the US increasingly prone to doing as it will, unilaterally, without paying heed to consensus. So if it decided to go and do a Judge Judy, it could.

PS I know I can edit but I'm lazy.