A persistent problem in Hawai'i is we don't know when it's time to end an argument and move on.

A case in point is the dispute over ceded lands — 1.2 million acres of former Hawaiian crown lands passed to the state in the 1959 Admissions Act.

A court battle by Native Hawaiians to bar ceded land sales until they resolve claims from the overthrow of their monarchy has dragged on for more than 15 years, been blown out of proportion and ended up before the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down a state Supreme Court moratorium on land sales.

The dispute finally seemed over when the Office of Hawaiian Affairs and three individual plaintiffs agreed to drop their lawsuit in exchange for legislation requiring a two-thirds vote of the Legislature before ceded lands could be sold.

Both sides got what they said they wanted: Hawaiians got a virtual assurance that no ceded lands would be sold while their claims are negotiated via the Akaka bill or other means, and the Lingle administration — which has no plans to sell ceded lands — got out from under a cloud over state title to the lands.

But even when both sides win, we can't end the argument.

The fourth individual plaintiff in the case, University of Hawai'i professor Jonathan Osorio, rejected the settlement and still wants the state Supreme Court to reissue a full moratorium on ceded land sales.

Osorio said of the other plaintiffs, "I hope they understand how much they have betrayed not just the interests of the (Hawaiian) nation but their own interests, because they are not willing to fight."

Osorio, a Hawaiian studies scholar, deserves respect for his knowledge and commitment to righting the wrongs he perceives.

But pursuing the issue in court when there's a workable political resolution risks losses for Hawaiians far greater than potential gains.

Since the proposed settlement assures that no ceded lands will be sold anytime soon, and plaintiffs can renew their lawsuit if the state tries to sell, any moratorium Osorio might win would be mostly symbolic.

That's hardly worth throwing it back to the courts and risking an adverse ruling that could knock the legal legs out from under Hawaiian claims.

Hawaiians dodged a bullet when the U.S. Supreme Court avoided a broad ceded lands ruling unfavorable to Hawaiian rights and overturned the Hawai'i court on narrow grounds, saying local justices relied on a 1993 congressional apology resolution for the overthrow of the monarchy that had no force of law.

Osorio's theory is that the state court can reissue the ceded land moratorium based on state law instead of the congressional resolution and keep the matter out of the hands of unfriendly federal courts — not necessarily a safe assumption.

The federal Admissions Act designated Native Hawaiians as only one of five beneficiaries of the ceded lands, the others being virtually everybody else in the state in one way or another.

If the state court ties up ceded lands for the exclusive benefit of Hawaiians, a non-Hawaiian could conceivably sue in federal court for being denied rights granted by the Admissions Act.

Why risk unintended consequences when the compromise between OHA and the state protects the ceded lands?

The goal of Osorio and other sovereignty advocates is to return all the ceded lands to Hawaiian control.

It's highly unlikely this can happen through the courts; it would have to come from political negotiations with the federal and state governments to settle the terms of the Admissions Act.

The wise course for Hawaiians would be to stop spending energy in court when it's avoidable and focus on developing a winning agenda for more critical political negotiations.