The UN is also getting involved. Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon has gone down to Egypt to attempt to help the situation. He will be meeting with Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas as well as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to further discuss ceasefire options.
On the American side of things, Obama has involved himself in an attempt to pacify the situation in Gaza. Obama discussed the importance of ending rocket fire into Israel as well as his regret for the loss of lives in Gaza.
It seems that the conflict here is drawing many different minds trying to work towards the same solution. What kind of solution do you think would be best? What other actions might result from this conflict and how much longer will it last? If you have any change in opinion since the last Gaza post, feel free to share.
5 comments:
I think it is necessary to recognize both sides of the conflict. While the killings in Gaza are absolutely horrible, they are the result of a response from Israel who has also been fired upon repeatedly. It is important to recognize that Israel has tried to negotiate for a ceasefire - an agreement that Hamas has not been willing to do.
I believe that a ceasefire and diplomacy would be the best solution for this problem at least temporarily. However, as stated in previous comment threads, this issue is deep-rooted. While I would love for the cascade of rockets into both Gaza and Israel to end, I don't think this will happen anytime soon. Even if there is a temporary solution for this violence, unfortunately I believe the conflict is cyclical and will return.
As a jew, I have felt so incredibly conflicted on this issue as I believe the actions of Israel do somewhat reflect on the Jewish population as a whole. I do not support the killing of innocent civilians. I believe Israel's response has been disproportionately strong. Still, I think Israel has the right to self defense and should respond to these unprovoked attacks. Is it right that women and children are getting killed? OF COURSE NOT!! However, Hamas has done a brilliant tactical job of surrounding their military leaders with innocent civilians. It is unnecessary and abhorrent for any government to put its own civilians lives at risk.
I remember in CWS sophomore year when we formed groups that represented countries in the Middle East and attempted to propose a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I also remember how difficult it was to come up with a solution that both sides agreed with. Since then, the conflict has escalated to deadly proportions, and I agree completely with Sharon that a ceasefire is immediately necessary as a temporary solution; innocent lives must be saved for as long as possible. However, a permanent solution to this raging conflict is far from present, as it seems highly unlikely that either side is willing to give up the land that each of their religions promised them.
Through interviews with representatives of each factions, the discourse on NPR over the past few days has often introduced a sense of victimization, for lack of a better word. As Sharon aptly pointed out, the conflict IS cyclical, and that much is apparent even within the context of the immediate here and now. Undoubtedly, each faction's respective justification of self-defense is valid in some capacity. Yet, considering the conflict more holistically, I've typically been struck by how often the symptom, rather than the underlying illness, is addressed. And one thus begs the question, "How do your reconcile countless generations of ethnic polarization?"
Just an interesting tangent I heard today on the radio: the Iron Dome, Israel's missile defense system, has managed to block a majority of missiles fired from Hamas. But thinking back to the "Star Wars" bluff by Pres. Reagan during the Cold War, Foreign Policy noted yesterday (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/11/19/rockets_red_glare) that an anti-ICBM setup is still a ways off. Apparently those systems with nuclear warheads carry a payload through space and also have a myriad of countermeasures which effectively render defense systems useless...Oh well. Still have to worry about Iran.
An issue of concern considering the region all this takes place in is how will the other nations react. This article in Aljazeera suggests that this situation is already different from that of 2008, as shown by Egypt's leadership in the ceasefire peace negotiations. The political scene has evolved this time around, perhaps for the better, as other nations also show support for trying to reach a ceasefire agreement between the two nations.
How much longer it will last is unknown. As Sangwon pointed out the issue goes back to countless generations of ethnic polarization. Not to mention that previous ceasefires have not necessarily been long lived.
While the issue is bad on both sides, as killing is not acceptable in any situation, I don't buy Israel's "self defense" justifications. Israel is claiming self-defense against a nation that it already militarily occupies, and is clearly much more well equipped than. Their attacks in the past few days have killed many more Palestinians than those killed by Hamas rockets. However as stated in this article the real issue here is ending occupation, not just the attacks.
I completely agree with Sharon and I also feel extremely conflicted about this issue. As a Jew, I will stand with Israel and my friends who currently reside there, for whom I am thankful were unharmed by the attacks. However, as it has been mentioned, both Israel and Gaza have experienced extreme devastation as a result of this conflict. Both sides need to stop killing innocent civilians out of anger. While a ceasefire and negotiations would be an extreme relief and a step in the right direction, I do not believe they will happen anytime soon; the issue is too deep-rooted. I hope that for the sake of both Israel and Palestine that the UN, with the help of the US, can find at least a temporary solution.
Post a Comment