There are some problems which are so multi-faceted and so controversial it seems a solution will never be found. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of these. History, religion, ignorance, racism, unending violence and numerous grievances by all parties involved have created the most hotly contested political environment on planet Earth. The conflict tends to incite a for-or-against mentality in both people and governments, leaving little room for compromise or middle ground. The United States is no exception to this stubborn thinking. It is so set in its ways that it has chosen to boycott the United Nation’s Durban Review Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance.

The absence of the United States, as well as Israel, Italy, and Canada from the conference is just part of the controversy. The presence of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has incited outrage and worry that the conference will crumble into an attack on Israel. Hordes of protestors from both sides have already taken to the streets in Geneva. The International Jewish Anti-Zionist Network, the International Coordinating Network on Palestine, and Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Committee hosted their own conference over the weekend, representing an extremist anti-Israeli attitude. Conference attendees equated Zionism with Nazism and Apartheid and called for Israel to be brought before the International Criminal Court for war crimes.

I find the stance of the United States and the stance of anti-Israeli conference attendees to be equally troublesome. This is not an either/or situation. Both Israel and Palestine are guilty of violence toward the other, and both bear some of the responsibility. While I tend to side with the Palestinians, I think comparing Zionism to Nazism is a bit over the top.

While I find the circumstances of the creation of Israel to be highly disturbing and regrettable, an obsessive focus on these beginnings will not help us move forward. After all, the circumstances of the creation of my own nation are highly disturbing, and a burden we carry with us to this day, but we cannot go back and undo them. All we can do is move forward.

The staunch either/or thinking from both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is what has been keeping us running in circles for years over the same problem. As both sides refuse to budge and the whole world adds its shouting to the din, the violence simply escalates, giving both sides more reason to dig in their heels and wish for the total destruction of the other.

As happens often with highly controversial subjects, it seems both sides refuse to see any truth in the other’s message. Protesting the alternative conference, anti-Palestinian advocates said they were in Geneva to “fight the good fight.” But of course, that is what anti-Israeli groups say about their message as well. It was my hope that with the Obama administration, the United States might finally adopt a more balanced approach to the conflict but so far he seems to be maintaining the nonsensical attitude of his predecessors.

There will not be peace in the Middle East without an independent Palestinian state. There may not be peace with one, but there certainly will not be peace without one. Of this I am sure. The US’s harsh stance on the Durban Review Conference is due to its assertion that the Palestinians have a right to an independent state, and protection from racism. It also states that the Israelis have the right to freedom from racism as well, and the right to national security, but this point seems to be lost on the Obama administration.

But the larger problem is that the Durban Review Conference is not just about the Middle East. It is about racism and racial discrimination in all its manifestations around the globe. It is about the caste system in India, the ethnic conflicts in Sudan and the Congo, the discrimination against indigenous peoples of Australia. And it is also about issues of racism of particular prominence in the US, such as gang violence and the burden in the national conscience of the heritage of slavery. What message is America sending the world by not being present in these discussions? What message is it sending to its own country?

The conflict in the Middle East is absolutely partially a product of racism. It is also a product of religious discrimination, which these days can be pretty indistinguishable from racism in many contexts. So it makes sense that it would be a central talking point of the conference. Even if the United States feels it will be in the minority opinion when it comes to this issue, why decide to not show up at all? If its opinions about the issue are not strong enough to stand up to scrutiny, maybe it needs to rethink its position.

Sometimes those who disagree with us are best left ignored (Ann Coulter comes to mind). And sometimes there really is no gray area between right and wrong, and a firm stance must be maintained no matter how long it takes to achieve victory. I certainly wouldn’t want to sit in a room and listen to President Ahmadinejad deny the Holocaust and call for the destruction of Israel. But no more could I tolerate the insistence that Israel only uses violence in defense of lands it rightfully claimed. Both opinions are likely to come up at the Durban Review Conference, and the wisest delegates will refrain from entertaining either idea. This is not an issue of absolutes. The longer we recognize extremists on either side the longer it will take for a resolution to be found. And by boycotting the conference the United States is taking an extremist stance and missing out on the first reasonable step: conversation.