It’s absurd that officials on both sides of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are convinced that the four years fighting is all about making a point.

An Israeli foreign minister official told Al-Jazeera TV that the main achievement of his government was proving to Palestinians that it was not possible to achieve anything through the ongoing four years long fight.

Dr. Mustafa Bargouthi, a prominent Palestinian leader, described the main achievement of the four years long Intifada to be: proving to Israel that it was impossible to ignore Palestinians or force on them a solution that excludes establishing a Palestinian State.

It could be selective to pick two statements from so many to make a point, but out of following closely the two parts of the conflict, one can conclude that making a point is very common in the political traditions of both.

Palestinians launched the Intifada in order to prove to Israelis that they can’t dictate a solution by force, Israelis moved swiftly and forcefully to prove to Palestinians that they can’t gain out of fighting.

Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon has chosen unilateral disengagement to prove to Palestinians that it was possible to move ahead without them, and Hamas attacked deep inside Israel to prove that the separation wall failed to achieve security to Israelis.

Settlers and their right wing allies twice defeated Sharon without the intention of replacing him, just to prove that he can’t include settlements’ evacuation in his disengagement plan.

Hamas uses Israeli attacks against Palestinian populated areas to prove that it is impossible to make peace with an evil enemy, Israel is tirelessly making the point that it is impossible to negotiate with “terror” groups and the ones that harbor them.

No one is talking about what is the problem, how to solve it, and how to step out of a bloody fight that harvested the lives of around 4,000 Palestinians and 1,000 Israelis, destroyed the Palestinian community an paralyzed the Israeli one.

Isn’t four years of fierce fighting enough to make a point?

After each side makes his point clear, would there be room to discuss the core of the problem, including Jerusalem, refugees, occupation, borders, settlements, and security, or making a point is the way to escape them?