On October 7th, an outbreak of violence occurred when Hamas initiated attacks on Israel. In response, Israel launched its own violent attacks on the Gaza Strip. This recent escalation of conflict represents a long-standing and deeply rooted issue that has endured across generations.
The frustration felt by Palestinians is somewhat comprehensible. Back in 1947, a group of affluent people, predominantly of European descent, convened in a newly established international organization known as the United Nations. These individuals, without any consultation or involvement from the Palestinian people, made the decision to redistribute the land that had been inhabited by their forebears for centuries - a period spanning over 1800 years since the Jewish population had been displaced from Palestine by the Romans in 135 CE.
The reason for their enduring anger becomes apparent once we delve into the historical context. Their vehement opposition to any negotiated settlement, including those proposed during the Clinton administration, is a result of their deeply-rooted belief that they rightfully own the entirety of the former British protectorate of Palestine, as it stood following the demise of the Ottoman Empire in the wake of World War I. Therefore, any attempts by external entities to seize any portion of their claimed territory are met with unequivocal resistance.
Regardless of the United Nations' well-intentioned actions, some individuals remain unconvinced by their motives. Their perspective is rooted in a combination of empathy towards the plight of the Jewish people following the Holocaust, as well as lingering culpability for not intervening earlier. These individuals argue that two wrongs do not make a right, and emphasize that Jewish ownership of the land in question ceased almost two millennia ago. Furthermore, they assert that even during its brief time as a Jewish territory, its historical significance was predominantly religious rather than geographical or political in nature.
It is indeed a challenge to withhold sympathy for individuals who have experienced the profound injustice of having their homes forcibly stripped away from them. Equally difficult is the task of not empathizing with those who have endured the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust.
It is interesting to consider the argument put forth by Palestinians, which suggests that while Jews may have historically resided in these lands, it does not automatically grant them perpetual rights over them. However, it is important to recognize that since 1947, multiple generations of Jewish individuals have been born, raised, and established their lives in this region. If their desire to remove the state of Israel were to be realized, it would indeed be a comparable injustice to the very one that compelled them to leave in the first place.
To add insult to injury, ever since that time, even the proposed partitioning of Palestine by the UN in 1947 has been bit by bit picked away at by Israel through occupation and so-called “settlements” with the support of hard-right Jewish nationalist politics in Israel, meaning this anger just continues to boil and get worse over time. Harsh collective punishment techniques over the decades (like bulldozing entire Arab neighborhoods in retribution because a single person from that region committed a terrorist act) haven’t exactly endeared Israelis to Hamas.
Now back to the Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023:
While it is understandable that Palestinians, including Hamas, feel deeply upset about the loss of their land, the significance of Hamas's claims regarding the events of 1947 and subsequent developments appears somewhat diminished under the current circumstances. The indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians by Hamas undermines any legitimacy their movement may have had. It is ironic that during the onset of the current attack, Hamas targeted young, politically progressive Israelis who were potentially sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and were attending a peace music festival. Such actions only serve to erode support for their cause even among those who might have been inclined to sympathize with them.
The actions perpetrated by Hamas, such as murders, abductions, rape, and indiscriminate missile attacks on innocent civilians, are unequivocally war crimes. Innocent lives are being lost, families torn apart, and communities devastated due to these heinous acts. It is vital that those responsible are held accountable for their actions. Justice must prevail, and the international community should work together to ensure that those who commit war crimes face the consequences.
But then we look at the Israeli response:
Numerous locations, including mosques, residential areas, and markets, have been tragically devastated by indiscriminate bombings. Strikingly reminiscent of the aftermath caused by Russia's relentless missile attacks and shelling on Ukraine, these grim images are rightly labeled as acts of war crimes by the international community.
Israel has issued a warning to Palestinians, urging them to evacuate to avoid any potential harm. However, the question remains as to where these individuals can seek refuge. Considering the circumstances, it is not feasible for them to simply board a plane and travel to the homes of their friends in other countries. Moreover, the blockade imposed by Israel has further restricted their options for leaving the area, thus undermining the credibility of the evacuation announcement. The United Nations has also acknowledged the impossibility of executing an evacuation of this magnitude, which has led to various critical observations.
It is an undeniable reality that there are no unequivocal "good guys" in the ongoing conflict.t.
Hamas' engagement in acts of terrorism against civilians is undeniably abhorrent and warrants the strongest condemnation. However, it is important to acknowledge that this should not serve as justification for Israel's indiscriminate bombings of Palestinian civilians. Engaging in war crimes cannot be justified as a response to war crimes themselves. This principle holds true historically, as we have observed in cases such as Kosovo during the 1990s and in Afghanistan following the attacks of 9/11 in 2001. It also holds relevance in the present context. Irrespective of their nationality, the protection of civilians must remain a paramount concern during times of conflict.
In consideration of the present conflict, it is most useful to abstain from aligning oneself with either party involved. Both factions bear responsibility for the bloodshed, and it is crucial to recognize that identifying a perpetrator in terms of war crimes is irrelevant. It is imperative to comprehend that this conflict extends far beyond a mere childish altercation.
The majority of individuals residing in Palestine are innocent people struggling to provide for their families, rather than members of Hamas. It is crucial to recognize that these civilians should not be considered legitimate targets. Failing to take reasonable precautions to prevent unintentional harm to them during military operations amounts to a violation of international law and constitutes a war crime. Any attempt to justify such actions by labeling Palestine as a terrorist haven is an unfounded argument aimed at condoning war crimes. It is essential to be wary of those who claim that their own war crimes are somehow acceptable compared to the perceived offenses of the other party. Such justifications should serve as a red flag, prompting us to steer clear of these dangerous arguments. Unfortunately, both Hamas and Israel are currently engaging in this type of discourse.
Advocates in favor of Hamas argue that in Israel (or the U.S.), there can be no distinction between innocent civilians and those involved in the dispossession of Palestinians' homeland, dismissing the notion of innocence altogether. On the other hand, supporters of Israel maintain that Palestine serves solely as a breeding ground for terrorism, negating the existence of any innocent bystanders. Nonetheless, it is essential to recognize the fallacy in both sides' positions and understand how their misguided ideologies will be recorded in history.
It is not necessary to align oneself with a particular side in every conflict. In certain situations, what the world truly requires is a group of impartial observers who can maintain objectivity and strive for fairness.
Opinions hold a potentially dangerous influence. They have the ability to incite individuals to act, even if those actions may not be justifiable. Opinions possess a significant power - they can shape how a nation perceives a problem, even if that perception is limited to a single perspective. It's important to recognize that opinions are inherently flawed. They are often motivated by political agendas and personal preferences, lacking in true factual foundation. The truth, the core of the matter, lies concealed beneath the wreckage that consumes the Gaza Strip and Bethlehem. The genuine revelations are found within the personal experiences of those directly engaged in the conflict, rather than relying solely on time-constrained journalists or biased bloggers. Only those deeply entrenched within the heart of the conflict possess the firsthand knowledge required to unveil the absolute truths that reside within.
In light of the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there is an urgent need for a well-balanced and inclusive approach that acknowledges the complexities and historical context associated with this longstanding struggle. While it would be both challenging and presumptuous to capture the essence of this conflict in a single op-ed, it is essential for the global community to collectively address this issue with thoughtful consideration for all perspectives involved, mindful of the protracted nature of the conflict spanning several decades.
When examining the complexities surrounding the conflict in the Middle East, a multitude of arguments come into play. Firstly, the concept of the right to a homeland becomes an essential factor to consider. Secondly, the issue of original sovereignty emerges, adding another layer of complexity. However, it is crucial to approach this topic with sensitivity and respect, avoiding the use of inflammatory statements or derogatory generalizations. By analyzing the various aspects from a balanced perspective, one can strive towards a deeper understanding and potentially contribute to a dialogue aimed at peaceful resolution.