The problem is that there is a minority on both sides for whom the pain of change will always be greater than the status quo.

But that just moves the point of change that needs to happen. The relevant change moves from "stop fighting" to "find a way to prevent this vocal minority from controlling policy." And it's not just the pain individuals are feeling. It is also the pain of groups.

I will stipulate that minorities on all sides of the Middle East mess are never going to accept peace with their neighbors for whatever reasons. It then becomes the job of the majority to overrule those minorities. To actually make the majority opinion the policy going forward, and not allow the minority opinion to rule the day.

There are a lot of parallels to the last decade or so of the US. So this isn't something new to think about. Frankly, it's as old as time. Democracy helps with that task. But history shows that revolution has been a common way to overthrow the rule of a minority. And that's the point I'm talking about here. If it's a minority of people overriding the will of the majority, the pain on that majority will eventually result in a change. Could be at the ballot box. Could be at the point of a gun or spear or a fist.

At any rate, it appears that the pain the majority is suffering currently is still less than the pain of making some kind of change in the Middle East.

--Peter