I has recently occurred to me that the Israel-Palestine conflict seems to be a fractal pattern of conflict. By this I mean that the conflict is present, and essentially similar in concept, at all levels from global to personal. This is typically unlike most conflicts, which will often vary greatly when viewed at the international level as compared to the interpersonal level.
As an example, the Iraq war (or Vietnam, or many other recent wars). Internationally, the US government went to war against Iraq and thus the two countries were in conflict. Yet if this was extended down to the level of states or further to individual people, say an American and an Iraqi meeting in the street in New York, or Kansas, or L.A. there would likely be no conflict or even thought of conflict.
Yet in the situation of Israel and Palestine, essentially the same conflict can be found to exist at all levels. First, internationally: Israel is surrounded by Arabic nations who generally desire Israel's demise (one might also extend this one level outward and suggest that the Arabic nations are, in some way, surrounded by Christians--the allies of the Jewish in this conflict) just as Israel surrounds the Palestinian territories and in many cases, let's be honest here, longs for the demise of Palestine. So the international situation mimics the national situation. Furthermore, on a personal level there is often great distrust between Israeli and Palestinian (is there any surprise why?) even when the most liberal of each side are involved. When those less liberal in their thinking are involved there is obviously open conflict.
So we see the fractal pattern of conflict: the large scale (international), the mid-scale (national) and the small scale (personal) all mimicking each other. This is undoubtedly reminiscent, in some ways, of certain other wars such as WWII, where the animosity existed at all levels (although the proximity component was often missing).
Perhaps this fractal analysis of conflict is a new method of thinking about the 'power' of the conflict, and the degree of effort that will be needed to resolve it. Were I an historian, I might go about applying the principles to other conflicts to see if there might truly be a general utility. In the meantime, however, I think it seems valid for use here. WWII , for example, essentially required the complete elimination of the opposing forces and the total destruction of several cities (both by conventional and nuclear forces). In analogy, I'm suggesting that the view of the Israel-Palestine conflict taken by the West is overly simplistic in its scope and therefore we can't help but attempt to enforce overly simplistic 'solutions'. We are mislead by apparent scale: 'two tiny states far away fighting it out'. One can't help but realize, however, that this is a conflict that has shaped much of modern history (and, in many ways, ancient history also). The Fractal analysis also supports what should be obvious to anyone who has truly looked at the conflict: that it is very deep seeded. There is no way that such a conflict will be resolved with band-aid measures. However it is finally resolved, via bloodbath or miraculous peaceful discourse (and that would make it the first conflict of such seriousness ever to be solved by talking) it will require an immense effort not just on the part of Israel and Palestine, but also by the West.
