> you are kind wrong. majority of population realists. I have no doubt about that. If you read my post I did not use the word majority anywhere. I used "a big

> you are kind wrong. majority of population realists. I have no doubt about that. If you read my post I did not use the word majority anywhere. I used "a big part". Now the obvious question is: how big is "big" from the perspective of such a conflict? I don't think it needs many hardliners on both sides to keep the thing going indefinitely. It then just needs many who shrug and let them do it. > collective punishment" is a good way to take very complicated situation that developed over last 100 years and reduce is to two words. kudos Discussing a topic always entails reducing things into a shorter, abstract form, otherwise you cannot discuss them at all. We make maps of the landscape in order to orient, carrying around the landscape in 1:1 turned out to be impractical. So you can (and should) reason against my choice of abstraction and tell me why you think it is a poor choice that doesn't describe the reality on the ground (and I might learn something from your answer). But demanding that I can't use abstraction at all and demanding the impossible is less productive. I chose the abstraction of "collective punishment" very carefully. The Gaza strip is a densely populated area with a big fraction of the population being kids below a age where they could even understand what is going on. Those kids have been born into that conflict and they did nothing wrong — just like Israeli kids that got slaughtered by Hamas did nothing wrong. Collective punishments like the terrorist attacks of Hamas or Israel turning off the water and electricity for the Gaza strip or bombing their homes (be it as collateral or on purpose) is a good way to create the next wave of violence and the next generation of terrorists. I get that the reality on the ground is important. But the reality on the ground was also what perpetuated the Thirty Years' War — which is why I proposed taking a step back and out of it is the only way to put a stop to it. The complexities violent conflicts produce are the reason why it is hard to end them. Historically without a rule of law you could have cycles of revenge and counter-revenge going on for centuries. But what happens if we are not talking about two enemy clans, but a state and a people? If you ask me, the state has to step up and attempt the impossible: Protecting the rule of law and human rights while still protecting it's people from the violence of asymmetric warfare. I have enough friends that live in the area (mostly on the Israeli side tho) to have an idea what this conflict can entail on a personal level, but that doesn't mean one cannot have a more systemic look at things.