It is a defining characteristic of an intractable problem of this nature that the protagonists insist on looking backwards rather than forwards.

Every time these people get together they can only see the future in terms of the past - hence the interminable references to "1967 boundaries" and "when the Israeli state was set up in 1948".

This, and every other dispute like it, follows the Northern Ireland model. It often seems that the world for them has not changed since the Battle of the Boyne 316 years ago, or the Potato Famine 160 years ago, both of which feature strongly in any discussion on "the Troubles".

There is a well-known and understood convention in business called "sunk costs", in which the value of any prior investment in a project should be set to zero, whenever there is discussion about the future. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost

If we can train people to understand the concept - that the borders of 1967 or the potato famine of 1847 are utterly irrelevant to a decision on the future, and that the only consideration should be "how do we get there from here" - progress in negotiations over how folks can accommodate each other's different aspirations will improve dramatically.

Every time one party or the other refers to an unavenged grievance, such as the indiscriminate massacre of the inhabitants of Jerusalem in 1099, all possibility of sensible compromise disappears.

What we are inevitably left with is a win-or-lose attitude, which will, just as inevitably, sow the seeds of the next round of violence, sometime next week, next year or next century.

CJ.. I have not the slightest worry about my post mate.

UNTUTORED.. I'm not sure where your post was seeking to head, but it sounded quite philosophical.. did I read it right in that you are basially saying "All have sinned" ? (and will continue to do so ?)

I didn't exactly see a 'Good Guy' in your post, but thats ok, I don't think we can really find one. The most we can find is a 'side' to take for reasons best known to ourselves. I presume it will be a mixture of national interest, theological reflection and so forth.

POSITION 1. Hamas (Islamist)

Part III - Strategies and Methods

Article Eleven: The Strategy of Hamas: Palestine is an Islamic Waqf
The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine has been an Islamic Waqf throughout the generations and until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it.

POSITION 2 Israel (Orthodox Judaism)

Genesis 13:15 "all the land you see, I will give it to you and your descendants forever I will give it to you" God speaking to Abraham.

Genesis 17:8 "I will give to you ad your descendants after you all the land of Caanan as an everlasting possession"

Genesis 35:12 "the land which I gave to Abraham and Isaac, I will give it to Jacob, and I will give the land to your descendants after you"
Exodus 23:31 "And I will fix your boundary from the Red Sea to the sea of the Philistines, and from the wilderness to the River Euphrates"

COMMENT:
Failure to understand the above is failure to understand the Middle East. Dance, swirl, walk, run, stomp, protest .... do all you like, but if it does not consider the above, its a waste of time.

Pericles - well said, the only relevant thing, surely, is the way forward - those who drive with their eyes on the rear-view mirror can do little other than repeat the mistakes of the past.

untutored mind - an apt description if ever I have seen one - I have to agree with Boaz_David with regard to your post, it was absolutely impenetrable twaddle. you might want to read what you have written before posting it occasionally, we might get some sense out of it that way

galty - you are boring and repetitive. you clearly have an axe to grind and totally missed the point of the article in order to vent your hatred of all things Israeli. you and your views are as much part of the problem as those that the author mentions. you talk about "hot tempers" in your last paragraph? something about pots and kettles springs to mind.

Hear hear Graham.

For those of you who say reject the'67 borders ...please give us your reference point for the formation of a Palestinian state. I'd be of the opinion any solution that does not accept the principle of '67 borders simply rewards Israeli aggression and is a refusal to accede to the terms of the Geneva convention. Or is any reference to UN Resolutions and the Convention looking too far backwards?

David I'd like to see only constructive remarks please.

The problem with this article and some of the comments here, is stereotyping "the Israelis" as if, unlike the Palestinians, they are a solid monolitic and faceless block of a single will.

Nothing can be further than the truth. Israel is a very mixed pluralistic society with huge internal conflicts. There is not even an agreement within Israel on the very nature of the state, and while most people here cry "Zionists", there is not even an agreement within Israel on what that word means (many Israelis simply call "zionist" to a good person who saves water or helps an old lady cross the street - what's the outrage about that?). While the Palestinians were recently engaged in a civil war, Israel is not far from that either.

The question is not whether Israel wants or not to deliver the "goods" (Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, etc.), but whether it CAN - and currently, it regrettably cannot (even though a majority of Israelis would like to see that happen, with certain reservations).

Just like the Palestinians are held hostage by their extremists (both internal and external), so is Israel held hostage by its own extermists: the settlers from within and the USA from outside. Any attempt to push and threaten Israel, any expressions of hatred towards Israel as a whole, only gives more power to those extremists.

It is time to realize that the middle-east conflict is not between Jews and Arabs, but between moderates and extremists. Now pick your sides again and support the side you believe in.

Some issues about Israel are regularly ignored (deliberately?) or forgotten.

1) Arab countries waged several bloody wars under the slogan push the Jews into the sea.

2) The occupied territories (Gaza, West Bank) were used as springboards to wage wars of intended annihilation of Israel. After there defeat they were, (not surprisingly) occupied, as were Germany and Japan after the war, and forbidden their own defence forces in view of a justified fear of further attacks.

3) The occupied territories still carry out attacks and, unlike Germany and Japan still preach war and in the case of Gaza fire rockets regularly at Israel.

4) These territories do have as much independence as is reasonable considering that they still preach (and where possible practice) a state of war against their neighbor who defeated them. Unusual for a defeated attacker.

5) Israel has absorbed as well as it can the Christian, Druze and Muslim minorities within its own borders and given them equal rights both politically and legally. For the Muslims this is greater freedom than they would ever have in the neighbouring countries. Christians and Druze have actually migrated from the West Bank to Israel to escape persecution.

6) Israel has applied modern farming techniques so that their area can support a size of population unimaginable under Islamic rule.

7) A section of Israel's Jewish population has lived their for very long periods, some from before the Arabs arrived there.

8) As well as providing a place of resettlement for European Jews it also provided a refuge for Jews persecuted in Arab countries. The numbers roughly equal the numbers of displaced Muslim Palestinians.

9) The Christian and Druze Arab populations of course remained in Israel they were glad to escape the previous rulers.

8) and 9) of course are regularly ignored by the anti Israel brigade, it damages their argument considerably.

If these points are not recognised, so how can peace be created?