This conflict, I have to admit, has rather surprised me in its speed and intensity. It's easy to see (if not to condone) both sides of the coin; the Israelis' anger that some of their number have been abducted, apparently for political reasons; Hezbollah's feeling that some of their number are in Israeli jails for political reasons. Each side willing to overlook (or sometimes, to laud) its own wrongdoing or atrocity, while equally willing to condemn (often with extreme prejudice) the wrongdoing or atrocity of the other side. It's an old story, that actions considered repulsive when committed by the other side become justifiable and, indeed, meritorious when committed by one's own.
Anybody believe that, or think it might ever lead to any sort of peace-y type thing ever?
Of course not. More over the fold, if you're not hoping for a brilliant and quick solution, because I don't have one.
We've all looked at conflicts across the globe, conflicts that appear to be intractable, and thought:
'Why don't they just stop it? They're not doing themselves any good.'
The answer is of course believe that they are the wronged party, the victim. And the others are the evil enemy bent on harming them whenever possible for purely evil reasons. And the other party believes exactly the same thing. And thus conflict continues, especially if the two parties have diametrically opposing aims (a good example of this is perhaps Republicans and Unionists in Northern Ireland; of course Northern Ireland cannot be Irish and British, and therefore the key aim of each party cannot be reconciled.)
But, as again in Northern Ireland, conflict can be mitigated and, in some instances, stopped altogether, but only if there is a willingness on both sides to admit fault. And a willingness for anybody outside the situation to weigh up opposing arguments and eventually to say to both parties 'Hey. Sit down and talk for a bit. You might end up shouting at each other but at least nobody dies today. Because you're both right but - more importantly - you're both wrong.'
It wouldn't be easy. It would be damned difficult and there would be setbacks the whole time and there would be hawks on both sides that promote war, and there would be schisms, and always warlike people would exist, and sometimes put their thoughts into action.
But jaw-jaw is better than war-war.
That is a pretty crappy and incomplete solution, but it's all we've got.
Thanks for listening.