WHY ISRAEL MUST END THE CONFLICT
By Kevin Woghiren
The Gaza-Israeli conflict continues into its 8th day with increased violence, a ground invasion by the Israeli military, and the number of innocent casualties continuing to rise. This has become a political war, and not a defensive one, with the Israeli Government admitting and acknowledging that its response to Hamas’ rockets is disproportionate because past “proportionate” measures were unsuccessful. Hamas’ rockets have claimed far less than a dozen innocent Israeli lives since the beginning of the conflict while Israel’s bombardment of Gaza has claimed thousands of lives including one in every four being an innocent civilian.
This is clearly Israel’s attempt of a regime change in Gaza even though it claims that is not the case. The attacks have been premeditated by Israel with the help of the United States Military, which Israel has also admitted through the countless simulations it started several months ago by practicing urban warfare in a life size re-creation of Gaza’s city streets in Israel. Hamas’ regime is, I think, to blame for ending the ceasefire but the Israeli Government can not use this as a scapegoat to begin an all out war with the people of Gaza.
Israel is only proving to the international community that it is still bitter about its failed conflict with Lebanon and Hezbollah in 2006 that ended in a draw and countless casualties on both sides. Anti-Israel ire will only exacerbate in the Middle East and the Arab world with continuance of this conflict as future generations grow up without their loved ones and Muslim opponents of Hamas begin to sympathize and align with the radical party, even though they do not agree with it’s ideology.
WHY PALESTINE MUST END IT’S CONFLICT WITH ISRAEL
By Pratik Desai (pdesai4@luc.edu) Loyola University Chicago class of 2010
It has come to my attention that a lot of people in the City of Chicago and Loyola University Chicago have been speaking out loudly in protest against Israel. In light of recent security breaches, Israel has been retaliating against HAMAS in the Gaza Strip. HAMAS, a militant Palestinian political party classified as a terrorist organization by the US, the European Union, Canada, and many others, has used violence against Israeli civilians, Israeli military forces, as well as its own people (who happened to be members of the opposition Fatah political party).
An unfortunate crusade of George W. Bush’s for democracy in the Middle East, when the people don’t have a dictator to hate, they hire goons to run their government. HAMAS should not be allowed to call any shots at the bargaining table of Middle East talks because it has explicitly stated in its charter that its goal is the destruction of Israel, and has made numerous anti-Semitic remarks. Should we take seriously a group that affirms power with martyrdom? I often wonder why the Palestinians elected an extremist party knowing that more Palestinians would potentially be put in harms way from Israeli retaliatory attacks.
If the Israel-Palestine conflict is to be solved, both parties need to show some humility and march towards a neutral, co-existing peace through a two-state solution. We cannot tolerate extremists in Palestine, and it is to their benefit to either vote the moderate Fatah back into power or support another non-militant political party. For if extremism pervades in Palestine, the Israelis will force the moderate Kadima leadership out of power and vote in a more hawkish, right-wing party led by leaders such as Benjamin Netanyahu, who have pledged to fight Palestinian aggression to the very last drop of blood. The Palestinian people will be driven to their graves if a right wing party rules Israel, which according to recent public opinion polling, is a strong likelihood.
January 30th, 2009 07:48
Kevin, I never blogged before I was just practicing arguing both sides of the same issue in a public forum and the last 2 or 3 posts I made on this topic are just complete trash where I wasn’t even trying anymore, I wasn’t even aware I posed a question, as administrator, why don’t you delete them…the last three posts (I’m withdrawing my last two) and end this section of the blog off rightly as you did, with a prayer for peace.
January 29th, 2009 18:42
You don’t understand. The Arabs lost in this one. Multiple times. The Ottoman Empire lost Palestine. Israel beat the entire Middle East in a week in a war in 1967. They have proved that they have no interest in leaving. Why pose a question for a plan that is never going to be feasible?
January 15th, 2009 18:57
So if the Arabs invaded westward up into India why land this newly formed Israel in the middle of what is THEIR old battle zone? Where they don’t belong. Israel is a fish out of water. The Arabs conquered rightfully so and would have been left in peace with the Arab Jews had they not re-created the state of Israel, which died eons ago. No, the solution was at hand in the ordainment of the State of Palestine by the League of Nations. Israel came last, comes last, and simply must go. Their God didn’t smite their temples, lands and kings so that the United Nations could come along and create Israel; no, they believed God smited them because they were a sinful and wretched people and they were and still are, as is the rest of humanity. Authority, once again, where it has not been given, has attempted to resolve a conflict it doesn’t understand. There is no parental role to be played here; the violence will eventually reach a natural stabilizing order but everything must progress naturally, and that means no outside interference or influence.
January 15th, 2009 18:28
The 2-state plan has been in the works for decades let’s try and make it work? Are you kidding me? That’s what you come back with? The 2-state plan is what STARTED this conflict….knock knock. Palestinians have a right to say in the land which now known as PALESTINE, and Jews who find themselves living in the land now known as ISRAEL should get the hell out of the fire if they don’t like the heat. Otherwise, had this externally originated partition had never occurred in the first place, the area may have had a bloody civil war which is really the only solution that passes the test in resolving these kinds of conflicts.
January 15th, 2009 12:32
I’m going to go ahead on a limb and agree in spirit with Dan. But I still stick to my guns. The 2-state plan has been in the works for decades. Let’s try to make it work.
To make a Devil’s Advocate point, the Ottoman Empire lost WWI to the Allied forces. The Ottomans controlled much of the Middle East, including Palestine and Trans-Jordan. Because they lost, as a part of the spoils of war, Britain and France retained control over parts of the old Ottoman Empire. Britain decided to create the state of Israel, and I suppose on those grounds, it can be justified by the rules of war.
For those who want to claim that I know nothing of the conflict because I’m not the one actually being shelled, and that my home is not being “invaded” so to speak, I urge critics to consider this: my parents are from India. “Their” land was invaded and conquered by Muslims from Middle Eastern lands; groups of Arabs, Turks, and such. This land was cultivated in Islamic rule, and as a result of a variety of different undertakings, 1/3 of the land became immersed in this foreign Islamic culture.
1/3 of their land was forcibly made into a different nation altogether, and to this day, India continues to fight to retain control over a region known as Kashmir, a Muslim-majority state which legally joined India through a document known as the Instrument of Accession but is currently divided in control between Pakistan and India along the Line of Control. Having said this, I believe that maybe the creation of Pakistan was a good thing. We can all be idealistic and pray that people of all faiths can live together under one banner, but hey, if they can’t, let them be. In fact, I’d even go ahead and say that India and Pakistan should make the Line of Control the permanent border in Kashmir, stop fighting, and move forward with hopes for better diplomatic and economic relations.
To bring evidence to the imperfections of my claim, because no course of action is perfect in this world, India actually has more Muslims than Pakistan. One may be lead to believe this sort of defeats the purpose of creating a Pakistan in the first place, but clearly a lot of Muslims bought into the idea of a secular democratic India.
Why not divide Israel in two? Create some sort of contiguous land mass connecting Gaza to the West Bank, possibly incorporate the Golan Heights into it, and create a Palestinian state.
I know a lot of Palestinians live in Jordan, and I actually wonder why they didn’t all just move there (when India was divided, a lot of people had to “leave their homes” and move to a different nation across the border). I am assuming that speaking the same language (Arabic), being of the same ethnic background (Arab), and having the same religion (Sunni Islam) was not enough to compensate for conditions on the ground at home in Israel/Palestine. Indians of Hindu origin really only had one place to go along those lines, and that was India.
But don’t the Palestinians have over a half dozen countries surrounding them which are both Arabic and Sunni Islamic? I see many people of Islamic religious background but from different ethnic backgrounds who protest this war between Israel and Gaza. Rightfully so. War is never good nor is it honorable. It is undertaken at times and deemed necessary, but it is bad nonetheless. But I wonder, if Muslims from countries all across the world are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, why not welcome them into your homes? A serious question. Forgive me if I miss something or do not know a complete story, for I have not lived in a Middle Eastern or Islamic country. But what differences would the Palestinians face culturally if they all lived in Jordan? This is just an idea,and I am not claiming this is what MUST be done. I like everyone else, speculate, and brainstorm ideas on what can be done. I am sensitive to the views of all and respect those who believe that Palestinians have a right to stay in the land which is now known as Israel.
I pray for peace in this time of conflict.
January 11th, 2009 20:38
idealistic? very true elitist? very false Anytime a person starts out their sentence with “First off,” one might assume they are emotionally charged, and I have to wonder why my remarks would be so misinterpreted as is what you’ve laid here before the court of public opinion. From one regular guy to another, yes I am a dreamer, I am an idealogue, I am a visionary; this does not make me elitist. Too bad that we don’t live in a world of dreamers idealogues and visionaries as we once did in our Enlightenment Age. Anyone who thinks I just insulted the globe is wrong. I never told billions to shun their faith in God. But if one is to understand the great mystery one must embrace a larger view, to include the role of one’s Self in the great mystery, and further not confine oneself to the narrow dogmatic views of one’s own Religion which IS elitist in every respect, in that if you do not follow it then you cannot reap its benefits such as redemption and quantum existence. Elitism is about EXCLUDING, not arrogance. I never called for a movement towards spiritual perfection, rather I understand this to be the goal of all life is to reach a natural order or eliptical perfection, its all too much theory too articulate, but what I was trying to say is that if people would stop and realize how their actions are contravening their God and destroying their own spirit then they might just stop fighting and be more righteous in their adherence to whatever religion they are choosing to follow. This is a complex conflict in which all should avoid making generalizations and for my part in doing so I apologize. War is a very necessary part of our history, but human beings are now at the capability of reasoning through conflicts without war and violence whereas in our History such wars were necessary to reach the stable order we have today, relatively. The fact that people are willing to fight and die for their faith is nothing to be proud of, but then that is largely a point of view as is much of this. Just don’t think I’m elitist, a dreamer yes, an elitist no. Dreaming is the first step in creative process, you should try it, and join the ones that think like you and “fight” (without violence) to make this a better world and/or the world you can believe in. Or don’t.
January 11th, 2009 16:55
You are very well spoken, Christopher. But, unfortunately, you opinions show that you are a bit idealistic and elitist. First off, the call for a movement towards “spiritual perfection” has to be one of the most ridiculous, arrogant statements I’ve ever read. Who are you to tell billions of people to shun their faith in God, redemption, and the after life? The fact that people are willing to fight and die for their faith so that one country, group, or religion might not actually “wipe a country off the map” or seek the destruction of a people based on its faith, as Hamas purports to do, shows that beyond the elitist character of your view, it is unrealistic enough to render it useless. The same goes for your views on war. War is one of the most unfortunate realities of history, but it is a reality nonetheless. It has served both honorable purposes, and not so honorable purposes. But, the fact remains that as long as groups like Hamas continue to be grossly intolerant of others, war will be a reality, no matter what type of fantasy land you choose to believe in. I’d rather be prepared for reality than caught dreaming…
January 11th, 2009 02:30
I meant “acceptable losses” not “acceptable risks” to have an acceptable loss of human life is to devalue it.
January 11th, 2009 02:28
I’m a regular guy, and I don’t have extensive knowledge I had to look the shit up, and just because I call out humanity on itself does not imply I think I’m better or anything, and please don’t let how I communicate make you think otherwise. I think that the statement “It is an unfortunate fact of War that there are unintended Civilian casualties” is an ironic statement of falsehood. We proved in the Cold War (even though there were Black Ops) that the United States can go up against a major Nuclear power and not fire a missile. Why then do we need to pulverize the little guys like Iraq, Bosnia, etc with missiles? Answer: Leaders are too lazy to think about and individuals too lazy to reason a complicated solution to a complex dilemma. Rather, its easier for one to just beat ones chest and throw down. It proves convenient for humanity to rationalize that casualties are “unintended consequences” but the truth is that the very nature of war defines these casualties as “acceptable risks.” It is still killing, and humanity is still too barbaric in its thinking to rise above it.
The problem is that People need to come to see war as a zero-benefit endeavor. In this way, the cost will always outweigh the 0-Benefit factor of War. There is a reason we have third world countries, so humanity can observe and learn from itself. Observing such cultures can be like looking back through the looking glass, and more advanced cultures have to be careful not to usurp their powers or right to self-determination.
The Art to War is not just avoiding firing missiles but not having them in the first place and still reaching solutions to conflicts through ideological warfare, not conventional warfare. Anyway, off the War kick Israel has to be on the side of right here and I say this for the following reason:
Per Wiki, if the original intent of the League of Nations was to “create a national home for the Jewish people” in approving the British Mandate of Palestine, then it (UN) should never have later in 1947 “approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish, one Arab” as it is only a result of this formal division that seems to have started the conflict. Though I think I now realize in my earlier remarks how the holocaust Jews arrival bolstered this partition. Ever since, the modern conflict has ensued. The problem is in the cultural diversity of the region. I think its one of those areas where you just have to let war do its thing for the enlightenment of an indigenous people. External influence or interference, especially by super-powers however, is counterproductive to World interests, I feel we should be documenting and recording such conflicts for history and then opining on them in our own enlightened society for future cultures and generations to benefit from, not providing the nuclear warheads to destroy an entire region or give one side a sense of moral superiority over the other. Just my opinion. We went from original intent of Palestinian Mandate creating the State of Palestine after WWI for the sake of “all jews” to less than 10 years later a newly formed (UN) partitioning the original state of Palestine into Jewish and Arab, the former choosing the name of Israel and the latter retaining its ordainment as Palestine. I guess determining my true support can only come in the resolution of the mixed question of who got there first? what’s the agreed upon law? and who fired the first shot?
Another thought, maybe these conflicts are warning signs for humanity that something is wrong, just like for the body, pain is a sign of a problem, so too maybe is War…maybe in this instance its that Religion is given too much emphasis and needs to be abandoned with people striving towards spritual perfection in communion with themselves. But I refuse to believe that a perpetual and indefinite state of conflict should be the natural order.
January 10th, 2009 21:06
I’ll be the first to admit that I’m no expert on Israel/Palestine or Middle Eastern Relations. In fact, I hope to take a class sometime in the future on the subject and especially look forward to talking to my roommate, who just returned from a semester abroad in Tel Aviv the other day, to learn more about the situation. From what I know from reading the news and the little history I know of the situation, it seems to me that Israel is justified in its actions against Hamas. From what I understand, it is well known that Hamas was the aggressor in the situation, continually lobbing bombs into Israeli territory, endangering its citizens and looking for trouble. Can you imagine if Canada or Mexico starting doing the same? Of course a country has the right to defend itself against such aggression. Additionally, Israel seems to be attempting to use its force against specific military targets, such as illegal underground tunnels, rocket launching sites, and the homes of Hamas (an organization recognized for its acts of terrorism around the world) leaders. It is an unfortunate fact of war that unintended civilian casualties arise, as has allegedly happened in Gaze (allegedly being the key word, as both sides dispute such injuries). While such injuries have undoubtedly happened, it seems to me that Israel is being discriminate and deliberate in its attacks in accordance with just war theory. Therefore, as a regular guy without extensive knowledge of the historical and understated issues behind the situation, I must say I support Israel in its actions against Hamas in Gaza.
January 9th, 2009 15:14
Sorry, just checked my facts in Wikipedia and I was slightly off guess it was a declaration arising out of WWI not WWII, though it remains the conflict is self-wrought:
—-cut and paste—-
The modern state of Israel has its roots in the Land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael), a concept central to Judaism since ancient times,[7] and the heartland of the ancient Kingdom of Judah to which modern Jews are usually attributed. After World War I, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate of Palestine with the intent of creating a “national home for the Jewish people.”[8] In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.[9] On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan. The Israelis were subsequently victorious in a series of wars confirming their independence and expanding the borders of the Jewish state beyond those in the UN Partition Plan. Since then, Israel has been in conflict with many of the neighboring Arab countries, resulting in several major wars and decades of violence that continue to this day
January 9th, 2009 15:04
I think that it is unfortunate that humanity is still so archaic as to invite the barbaric destruction of its own kind in the form of War. This is why the United States must amend its Constitution with a Peace Amendment that would minimize such conflict and thus lead the world into a new Peace Age / Initiative. We should go from a Department of War to a Department of Defense to a Department of Peace. These missile throwing contests are often sparked by radical groups like Hamas and Hezzbolah but the extremists are not without their just causes. I agree with Tiffany, this conflict goes back to David the Israelite and Goliath the Philistine. That said, despite its biblical origins this most obviously is not the Jewish Promised Land in which they’re (the Israelis) are situated. From what I understand, the Jews had dispersed largely throughought Europe with few concentrations as many had already intermixed, but the largest concentration of Jews being around Germany. It was only after WWII and the “Concentration Camps” of the Holocaust that the Jews were then relocated in the 1940′s to what is modern day Israel where they find themselves today. However, I believe that due to Early Objection by the indigenous and already existing Palestinian State, the UN Refused to certify and approve this relocation and formation of the State of Israel. Due to US support however, and because of this lack of a “stamp of approval” by the UN; the United States gave Israel Nuclear Arms to secure its place in the region, the Jews were then finally once more with a land and nation-state, but these people have been going without land, temple, or king for thousands of years and so their displaced diasporic state should have been all too familiar to them. I suppose in that regard Hitler’s Genocide attempt was actually more humane than once before thought. Better to wipe out a race of people unfit and incapable of holding their own then to sentence them and their future lines to a lifetime of living under battle conditions, which is essentially what the US propagated. It is all too obvious you are not going to just dropship an entire group of people flying into a region outside neighboring countries and not have there be some kind of lasting cultural and socio-political conflict. Had this been a situation of natural developments the region would have reached a natural stability that existed prior to interjecting the new foreign Israel. The Jews/Israelites, if they truly want peace, would pick up and leave and await their promised land, hint: it’s not on Earth, or if it were would at best be within the peaceful borders of the United States, and had Hitler completed his task they might all be there in their promised land, and had the United States put the Jews in our farm territories back in the 40′s then today they might know peace, but landing them where we did I have to say that once again this new conflict in the region, in modernity, flies in the face of a failed peace accord and has all been brought about by our own US world activity.
Please note, I am not a fan of Hitler or the Holocaust, I just wonder why all human sentiment lays waste in the face of war. This last US election proved War is not important enough to bring people to the polls, or they would have done this in 2004 and saved hundreds of lives, tens of suicides, and thousands of soldiers that now have to live their life with one arm or one leg, or blind, never able to live a normal life, and now psychologically corrupt by the acts of war, all because the people couldn’t make it out to the polls and vote. Way to go, I think Jesus would spit, humanity has a long way to go.
January 5th, 2009 07:30
Whats interesting is.. I have a generalized sum up conclusion to all of this which is very religious-based…that doesnt allow me to think based on international laws or the U.N’s Charter of Human Rights..but conclude that there will never be peace in the middle east. If anyone of you read the bible..(if interested) you may know what im talking about. I choose neither sides…I feel that this is all inevitable, and was meant to be.
January 4th, 2009 11:40
Perrin, I brought up Hezbollah form 2006 because Israel thought it could defeat Hezbollah and send a message to the Arad world of its tenacity but it was a failure and now they are atacking a much smaller opposition in Hamas as an ego boost.
January 3rd, 2009 23:54
You raise some good points Pratik, however you fail to realize that most of the news coverage in America is extremely biased and hegemonic. Do you have any idea what Hamas has done for the Palestinian people? The Israeli govt refuses to give the Palestinians food, shelter, water, education, and other bare necessities. Also, Hamas is not political. They were never elected. They are a group of rebels, not militants, who oppose the injustice set upon their people and are taking a firm stand against it. They are only doing what they believe they have the right to have, Also, Arabs can not be anti-Semitic when they are Semites themselves. All of the western world fails to realize and educate themselves that Arabs and Jews are Semitic people. So Arabs can not be anti-semitic when they are Semites themselves. They come from the same land except they each have different languages and religious/cultural traditions.
Most of your facts are based off of hegemonic perspectives delegated by the extremely biased news sources we have here in America and the west. You think CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and others are reliable sources that will give you both sides of the story? NO! They are not! They show and portray the views of the American govt which is support Israel. Moreover, when someone is speaking out against Israel on the news, they are immediately cut off.
Kevin Woghiren raises a good point that Israel is still bitter about its draw with Lebanon and Hezbollah. Even that war was unjustified, just like the Iraq War, the War in Afghanistan, and others. These governments have no solid justification for their causes and just blind sight everyone by spreading patriotic sublymonal messages, through news, movies (Iron Man, True Lies, and others) TV shows (24 with Keifer Sutherland), and other media outlets. People need to not have an open mind, but an active mind and actively educate themselves from unbiased or minimally biased news sources. Then can people be the judge for themselves.
January 3rd, 2009 23:07
I just think that the response on the part of Israel is extremely disproportionate to the point that it is obvious that they are attempting to send a message to the Arab world. If they wish to exist peacefully amongst their neighbors I don’t think it is wise for them to resort to all out war, no matter which side “started” this conflict. If George Bush taught us anything it’s that dropping bombs doesn’t win you allies, especially in the Middle East. These recent events remind me of the Russia/Georgia conflict in which the side “on offense” beat up on a weaker nation to send a message to the world. The difference here is that Israel’s existence is much more fragile than that of Russia. The Russia/Georgia conflict worried everyone because the world realized that it could essentially do nothing to stop it. However, Israel’s neighbors have shown throughout history that they have no problem launching attacks against it and I think what we are seeing today is sure to bring up some of those hard feelings.
January 3rd, 2009 22:52
Kevin why do you think Israel’s conflict with Lebanon in 2006 has anything to do with it?
February 5th, 2012 21:58
Please elaborate Chris on your stance, I’m not sure what you mean. Thanks.
February 5th, 2012 21:58
You can’t expect a million refugees to remain peaceful when the people responsible for their situation are living a few miles away.
February 5th, 2012 21:58
i’m going to have to agree with kevin on this one.