Y'know, the conflict isn't so much with religion as it is with a conflict of terms. The truth is, "insurgent" is just a derogatory term for "charismatic leader". The perception of who the charismatic leader is changes with the times, group, function, neccesity, etc. Perhaps the Israelis need a Sharon just as much as the Palestinians need an Arafat. Let's say a charismatic leader were to suddenly rise to power, and then like Greece, use an army to tyrannically take over the government of a country. The country's citizens, while divided, suspect that there is a right and wrong in who should lead them, and raise up their own army in opposition to the tyrannical injustice upon them. Who is the insurgent in this particular example? Suddenly both parties officially are insurgent. To compound their problem a world super power instates both insurgents as legitimate governments. The previous government fully collapses and now duplicate governments govern the same area with different rules, regulations and ideologies. Neither can back down, and both must try to live in the same space. It's like having two sets of mutineering pirates legitimized and forcing them to live on the same ship. Why when they proceed to kill each other off is everyone so surprised?