7th November:

A couple of years ago I attended a business function and got talking to a Israeli gentlemen. Over the course of the evening, the conversation drifted unintentionally towards the Israeli Palestinian conflict. However, no sooner had we touched on the subject than the conversation was cut short. My views were branded naïve and simplistic. “You can’t possibly understand the complexity of the situation and the 2000 years of history that have led us here”, I was told. Rather than offend, we moved on to other topics, but I later reflected that I should perhaps not have let my interlocutor off the hook quite so easily.

I’ve heard similar arguments before. In the absence of all the information and a full understanding of the heritage, history and baggage of both sides, any views one holds are merely going to represent gross oversimplifications of the situation.

However, is it not exactly this baggage and history that represents a large part of the problem? Surely the views of both sides become increasingly entrenched over time and perhaps a simple, ‘clean-slate’ analysis of the circumstances as they are at the time is exactly what such a conflict requires. Bring in a mediator with no prior involvement and no political axe to grind (not an American in this case, then) and have both parties commit to abiding by his or her recommendations.

Simple? Undoubtedly. Simplistic? Not necessarily.

For the record, I'm with these guys.