Appropriate response
The present conflict in the Middle East, i.e. Israel vs. Hamas with Palestinians being collaterals, has been ongoing for more than a week now. There has been a constant barrage of opinions, in the international fora, against Israel for its response in Gaza strip. Although Israel has been providing justifications as to its position in the conflict, specifically as response to the armed instigation of Hamas, much of it does not provide enough persuasion given the backdrop of increased casualties on the part of Palestinian civilians, whether they are sympathetic to the Hamas or not.
Some of the issues being discussed on the matter are the timing, the Obama silence, proportionate response, and the ultimately blamed, among others.
The issue on the timing of the attack has been seen by some as suspect, considering its apparent relation to the remaining term of the hawkish but outgoing regime of US president George W. Bush. Although Obama is seen to be as hawkish on the topic of Israel-Palestinian conflict, which is more on the support of Israel1 , the wild card on his “concern” on Palestinian suffering during the 2008 presidential campaign was an apparent concern, for some, towards a determinate policy on the Israeli-Palestinian political milieu prior to the Israeli military operations.
On the other hand, there is an increasing criticism on the silence of US president-elect Obama on the current on-goings in Gaza, said largely due to his “one-president-at-a-time” policy2 . The policy would have been reasonable enough had it not been for the increasing civilian casualties in Gaza. Unlike the US, else the global economy, such policy would still be viable inasmuch as substantial shifts in market forces could hold until Obama’s inauguration. The no-comment stance could be seen to discount the immediacy of the Gaza issue, inasmuch as it is not intimate to any immediate US interest.
The main issue in the conflict is this matter involving proportionate response. Israel is currently being criticized — here referring to anti-Israeli demonstrations in various countries — for a disproportionate response in light of armed provocations made by Hamas, with fatal consequences to Palestinian individuals not necessarily related to the Hamas. Interestingly enough, this issue is not novel as this matter has been raised at least two year ago, albeit in relation to a similar conflict.
Lastly, the fault finding as to the cause of the conflict has been quite pronounced. Israel blames the Hamas for the instigation. Palestinians, and Palestinian-emphatic individuals, point to Israel. Some local intellectuals would point to the United Kingdom as the ultimate reason, alluding to the British Mandate of Palestine. But then again, an aversive drunken comment by one, perhaps intended as a smart aleck, pointed to the German Nazis as culprits since there would have been no land conflict had the latter been successful.3
Conflicts and arguments could be nasty. Definitely, some responses are quite inappropriate.
Endnotes
- Considering, however, the forum it was said, i.e. the persuasion of the Jewish community for presidential votes [↩]
- “When it comes to foreign affairs it is particularly important to adhere to the principle of one president at a time.” [↩]
- Update 20 January 2009: There is this supposed quote circulating recently in the Internet: “‘I could have annihilated all the Jews in the world, but I left some so you would know why I was killing them.’ - Adolf Hitler.” It is not clear whether indeed it was articulated by whom it is being attributed to. [↩]
