Future economists will ask why land conflicts in MENA [Middle East North Africa] could not be settled by negotiation. The Coase Theorem states that under ideal conditions, parties can negotiate terms that accurately reflect the full costs and underlying values, resulting in the most efficient outcome.

But in a multi-religions region without a consensus on right and wrong and without clear standards of evidence, territorial disputes cannot easily be argued according to accepted law or facts. The historical remedy in such doubtful cases was “trial by combat”.

“Trial by combat (also wager of battle, trial by battle or judicial duel) was a method of Germanic law to settle accusations in the absence of witnesses or a confession in which two parties in dispute fought in single combat; the winner of the fight was proclaimed to be right.”

In cases where the court could not decide who was right, the contending parties could fight it out, in the belief that if no man knew who was innocent, God or the fortunes of war would decide. In way, war is trial by combat when the international order cannot enforce a decision.

MacArthur’s Japanese surrender speech: “We are gathered … to conclude a solemn agreement whereby Peace may be restored. The issues, involving divergent ideals and ideologies, have been determined on the battle fields of the world and hence are not for our discussion or debate.”

Because international diplomacy failed Israel and its enemies are resorting to war, to trial by combat, to settle the issue. This, alas, is how much of the world’s boundaries were drawn throughout history and we are no nearer replacing it than our caveman ancestors.