There are two alternative models for examining conflicts. Model One assumes that there are at least two parties who disagree over facts, causes, consequenc- es and the best way forward. Both sides are wrong, with neither being entirely blameless. Both will have to live with each other, no matter how the conflict ends. This will be easier if both sides compromise, with mutual give-and-take and accommodation.
Model Two holds one side as totally right and the other wrong. The virtuous should not negotiate with evil but destroy it. Principles are not for sale, cannot be bargained away and must never be compromised. History proves that appeasement merely whets the appetite of the aggressor, not buy lasting peace.
In classroom situations discussing conflicts between others, almost all students pick the interest-based Model One as likely to resolve conflicts just as the value-based Model Two is likely to prolong them. But in an emotionally charged dispute involving their own country, classroom consensus collapses in a chorus of "buts" that would do a smokers' convention proud. The same is true of comments in the world press critical of Israel's Lebanon war.