Compromise or conflict?
At some point in a dispute or confrontation, a choice must be made: to compromise or continue to engage in conflict.
This choice usually comes down to an endgame, where a particular party wants to end up after the dispute or confrontation.
Conflict usually continues when a particular party’s endgame is to achieve its objective in totality.
This usually comes from extreme parties, which are so rigid in their goals that they’ll do anything and sacrifice anything to achieve them.
Compromise is achieved when the parties value the good over the perfect for an endgame.
This means they may not achieve all their goals in absolute totality but will reach an endgame that leads to something substantial, and the sacrifices they need to give up in achieving this endgame are much less impactful than the sacrifices of conflict.
This choice between compromise and conflict has defined the Israel-Palestine issue going back to the early 1990s and has directly led to the Israel-Hamas War.
This choice also directly affects how the war and dispute will find its endgame.
Here, we’ll examine why the rejection of compromise for conflict led to the Israel-Hamas War, how finally embracing compromise could solve this and the entire Israel-Palestine situation, and the role that we, as the United States, could have in this issue’s endgame.
