Does anybody know what the hell I'm talking about?

[mibn2cweus]

What the Middle East region lacks and requires for a stable peace is a clear and mutually agreed definition of what constitutes a political border, how it should be defended, how disagreements should be resolved and how violators should be dealt with. A "we were here first" definition of political boundaries has obvious weaknesses especially when applied through divergent ancestral or religious historical imperatives. The possession of a given territory must incorporate the responsibility to control the actions of its citizenry as well as an agreed system of resolution for the inevitable breach of self- (internally maintained) controls. Governmental institutions that deal with issues of border definition and maintenance must have a sufficient capacity to evolve and refine policies as this need, that develops from growth within various communities, becomes apparent.

The world at large needs to reassess the ethical standards and methods it uses for dealing with inter-national conflicts. Many questions addressing these needs must be raised and as the answers to these questions are conceived, if they are not currently at hand, they must be made available to the ruled so that they can positively affect the powers and respectability of their rulers.

Until we as a civilization are willing to tackle the job of grasping the nature of this and other problems and extracting them at the root they will continue to crop up whenever the opportunity arises. As for debating who has cast the first stone in this particular conflict perhaps we need to devote more of our time and energies to considering a better way of resolving these conflicts which seem to be taking on a life of their own.

Any ideas?

[reffgt]

Well, if you really believe the rubbish that is spouted these days, heaven help you. If they actually cared about persons, they would not invade anyones country at all. Live and Let live.

[ludwig]

mibn, that's all true, but if your neighbour put a fence across your garden overnight and said the bottom half was now his, you'd probably just go round and punch him. After ripping the fence up of course.

[mlbt]

as long as there are humans on this planet, there will be human nature.
As long as there is human nature, there will be territorialism and religion.
This is inevitable in the extreme, utterly unavoidable, and a realistic fact, not a pessimistic rant.
Whilst i agree that with enough vigour you can overturn the ideologies of a madman (which is usually only acheived with brute force and by its very definition an act of war), when religion plays a role in the conflict, youre pretty much screwed.

[mibn2cweus]

reffgt, There is a question of who invaded who�s country first. If you go back far enough no country (geographic location) belongs to anyone. On the other hand if you claim ownership you take on the responsibility to defend the peace and freedom of those within and to demonstrate to those outside your borders that you have the desire and ability to be a good neighbor. Denying and acting against another�s right to exist in peace is a forfeiture of one�s own right to exist.

ludwig, First I would seek third party arbitration. Failure to provide fair and reasonable arbitration is as much an act of war as refusing to accept the judgment of such an arbitration. In such circumstances we all forfeit our right to live in peace as well as any justification to complain about the inevitable outcome. Peace and freedom are values we must all respect and work to gain and keep and be prepared to defend or suffer the all too evident consequences.

mlbt, Religion is either a choice or a mandate. When one freely chooses to abandon reason they forfeit membership to the human race. In the case of mandated insanity the only rational choice is to seek sanity elsewhere and defend reason when and where it can be found.

My purpose here is not to be argumentative for the sake of argument but to explore solutions. Thanks to all for your honest and sincere replies.