Israel and the movement of things

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Tribe' , Idaho:

Is there more to your perspective on this aside from:

'Innocents are dying, which is wrong, and both sides should just say no to violence'

which is pretty obvious on a humanitarian level.


It's also gloriously impractical.

Both sides are polarized and not only view concession as wrong but significant numbers on both "teams" truly believe that the application of enough force will generate victory. Therefore, violence will have to be tried to its fullest -- and both sides bled white -- before some form of lasting resolution can be generated.


There are historical instances where intransigent questions were resolved through measured discussion, I am sure, but the far more popular choice is to ventilate the opposition.


Until enough killing leaves both parties stunned, exhausted, unable to continue, and forced to talk; there will never be a "resolution" that lasts.

[Idaho]

The problem with it is that there can be no solution. For their to be a solution all the various sides must see it as a problem. Currently they see it as a war. And in wars you have winners and losers, not solutions.

My irritation comes from the fact that the people who are suffering most are not the people who see it as a war, but those who would rather just get on with a peaceful life.

rotorgun - your understanding of the situation is about on a par with your spelling and grammar.