|
Common ground for it's own sake is sad. Common ground so as to avoid killing someone has it's place. It's the inbetween things that are case by case right or wrongs. For example: Two groups of people claim ownership to one land, that happens to have tremendous religious emaning to people all over the world. Both groups want the land and they are willing to do what it takes to obtain and hold it. Enter compromise...I happen to think it is possible for Israel and Palestine to peacefully coexsist, possibly even on the same land. The only way to solve that peoblem, short of genocide, is compromise. Both sides have to make concessions for the common good. And that's the bottom line. When compromise best serves the common good, then it is a useful tool. When compromise does not best serve the common good, it is unnecessary. The problem really comes in when one group wants to compromise, and the other group(s) do not. In this case there either needs to be outside involvment (I'm not a big fan of this one, as it can actually draw in more people who are unwilling to compromise), or they need to walk away.
Compromise, like any other tool, has it's uses. It is not a universal fix for every problem, though.
|