Without variation and with omnipresent intensity, the single cure to every natural, economic and political calamity is said to be civil dialogue.
What is the solution to heated debates between campus groups?
Discourse, proudly proclaim student leaders. How about the solution to labor strikes? Round table discussions, opine the analysts. And what can we use to resolve this Middle East conflict once and for all? The media, body politic and government all agree: mutually beneficial conflict-resolution dialogue.
In minor disputes and legal arbitrations, dialogue sure works. Cases that would take years to be resolved are quickly and effectively settled outside the courtroom. And often a petty quarrel between friends can be overcome through discussion and understanding.
But in the matter of court cases, the opposing sides are citizens bound by the same set of laws and the problem is a misunderstanding, not a clash of worldviews.
In the present conflict, Israel and Palestine are not governed by the same laws and their conflict is not rooted in misunderstanding.
The origin of the conflict between Israel and Palestine is clear - it is their diametrically opposite historical, political and cultural beliefs about the world around them.
The conflagration here extends even beyond a strong ideological matchup. The problem is not in the debate itself but rather in the rules of the debate. The different historical legacies of Israel and Palestine have rendered them incompatible entities. The recent history of the Middle East peace process seems to prove this.
The most promising outcome of the Middle East peace process, which was initiated in October 1991 at the Madrid Conference, came in August 2000.
President Bill Clinton, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and the head of the Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat got together in Camp David for some good, hearty discussion. At fir it everything seemed to be going well.
But just one month later, when Israel's opposition leader Ariel Sharon visited the Islamic sites on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem, suicide bombing began again, and the Middle East was thrust once again into chaos.
But if Sharon had not visited the Temple Mount, the voice of dialogue still asserts, then perhaps the peace could have been maintained.
Until when? Until one rebel suicide bomber blew up a mall in Israel or until an impassioned Israeli soldier killed an innocent civilian? When two sides fight on the same level as Israel and Palestine now fight, there will always be occasion for violence.
The peace process by its very nature requires that both parties at least agree on the terms of debate. But due to disparate cultural, historical and political circumstances, Israel and Palestine can never do this.
The total inefficacy of billions of dollars, thousands of Web sites, tens of thousands of articles -- decades of energy expended by dozens of governments on the Middle East peace process -- prove that peace through debate is not possible.
So we have arrived at that dreadful conclusion -- in this instance, peace will never be achieved. It will not be achieved because two sides are fighting tirelessly for what they believe is the truth -- their destiny. The two sides have their eyes on the same prize.
How will this whole thing end? If history has anything to do with it, it will end when one side scores a convincing victory and the other side bears a substantial defeat. Every major conflict in world history, from the Peloponnesian War to the American Civil War, has ended with the victory of one side and the defeat of the other side.
The battle in the Middle East is only part of this grand historical pattern.
Of course, college students from both sides should cooperate and lead discussions. Civil discourse is the best way to tell our side of the story and hear the other side. Group discussions, though they abound in cliches that are pregnant with nuances but devoid of meaning, can help us in our eternal pursuit of human understanding.
But not for a moment should we believe that this dialogue can -- or will -- change the turbulent future of the Middle East.
Be the first to comment on this article!