Why peace talks don't work

Peace talks are against the very nature of the world.  It's a relatively new idea.  In reality peace talks come out of a few modern ideas. 

First there is the idea that there should never be war after the Geneva Conventions and secondly there is then there is the issue of taking sides.  We will visit the first idea later but when you tell a side or even both sides to stop you are in effect talking a side.  Whoever is losing is the side you are taking.  Or at least that's usually how it works.  Maybe such an example without looking at the Israeli-Arab conflict is the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait.  Kuwait is such a small country.  Maybe no so different from Israel in that regard except that Iraq is much bigger than any Palestinian army.  The world tells Iraq to stand down.  They are talking Kuwait's side without thinking about it.  Maybe they are right for doing that but still they took a side.  They thought that one side was right and so they told both to stop.  In this case there is more an issue of righteousness because of the difference in size in the armies but still there is an issue of the first part.

This idea that there can't be war is stupid.  If you will take a look at the history of the world and how countries were formed and reformed you will see one common theme.  War and then peace.  Over and over.  It's a recurring theme.  It never ends.  The world has sought to end this vicious cycle with good intentions but I think they have in some cases at least done more harm then good. 

If you will look at one of the ugliest examples of genocide for the sake of war (The Holocaust was the worst but that wasn't for the sake of war so I will leave that alone) which was the American attack of Hiroshima and Nagasaki you will see what I am saying.  Sure, it was ugly.  It was nasty.  In the end however we have had years of peace.  That is because of one simple concept.  The Japanese decided that the price to continue fighting was worth more than victory if that was even possible.  So as unfortunate as it was, after those bombings we had a lasting peace for what is now more than 60 years.  Let's imagine if we had applied the Israeli-Arab conflict way of thinking here.  First, the war would have had less fighting and probably there would never have been the A-bomb but there might still be fighting today.  This is because one side was never allowed to win.  This is the problem.

Now look at the Middle East conflict.  Every time there is fighting, they are urged to stop.  People don't get it.  We don't want to stop.  We want to fight.  You see both sides believe that the price to fight is less than the price of losing.  From my perspective which is very Jewish Religious I am willing to give it all up and so are they.  However if the world would let us continue without intervention there wold eventually come a day where one side would give up.  Surrender.  The cost to fight for that side would be greater than cost of losing.  They could give up.  We are now in so-called peace talks.  Why should either side give anything up?  They have no motivation.  The only real motivation is to please the rest of the world which isn't genuine.  World.  Do you want this conflict to end.  Then let it come to an end.  Think of it like a school fight.  The fight happens in the middle of school and the teacher breaks it up.  What really happened?  Did she make peace?  No.  Absolutely not because after school those two will fight it out to the end and in the end one will stand down.  There will eventually be mutual respect and usually peace between them.  There will be clear lines and each side will know where the other stands.  Until that happens in the Middle East there will always be war.