It's the perfect definition of a settlement. Both parties didn't get what they wanted.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think most conflicts do end with negotiated settlements; some don't, but most do.
Middle Eastern wars rarely end with outright victory and permanent stability, so the word 'settlement' may promise too much. At best, for many years, it may simply mean stable ceasefire lines, reduced bloodshed, fewer refugees, and less terrorism.
Where we have been incorrect in what we have done, then I think we have an obligation to settle.
A sign that negotiations were handled well on both sides is that everybody probably feels a little bit like they didn't get what they wanted.
There can be no settlement of a great cause without discussion, and people will not discuss a cause until their attention is drawn to it.
For many of the world's conflicts, it is difficult even to conjure up a feasible settlement.
To compromise simply means that you go a tiny bit below what you know is right.
I'd like to add that negotiating is not something to be avoided or feared - it's an everyday part of life.
Any negotiation on the basis of land for peace is a fatal mistake.
Where we're not wrong or where the cost of settling is so much that it is totally disproportionate to the harm or the error that we made, we're not going to settle.