i've been keeping up on the current conflict between Hamas and Israel, and a lot of things just don't make sense to me.
To start out, here are some things i do get:
- Israel is an actual nation. It has, you know, a real army and stuff. It has national sovereignty and the right to protect itself from attack.
- Hamas is, well, a terrorist group who broke a truce. They do not recognize Israel as a nation, and therefore, lasting peace is not a viable option as long as they are the dominant governing body in Palestine, so something probably needs to be done about that.
- The paradox there is that Israel does not recognize Palestine, so i guess lasting peace could also not happen while Israel is the dominant governing body of...itself. Israel has the advantage in this respect though, as they are, in fact, an actual nation capable of being recognized.
here are some things i don't get:
- Last i heard, there have been 2 Israeli deaths as the result of Hamas' mortor attacks. There have been over 315 deaths as the result of Israel's attacks into Gaza, which Israel refers to as self-defense. i am under the impression that attacks are typically retaliated against based on a "proportional response." That would mean, basically, a life for a life. (This is the same sort of principle that support for capital punishment is frequently based on, but that is a subject for a different post.) My powerful math skillz tell me that 315 does not equal 2; these same math skillz tell me that this response is therefore not proportional. Now, that's fine and good if Israel decides they want to handle this one differently, that's their right. And it's fine and good if each of the 315+ people dead are members of Hamas, as they are the targets of Israel's attacks. But what if they're not? We can't know for sure, i don't think, and isn't the chance that Israel may have killed a couple of innocent folks who may never have even thrown a rock at a fence enough of a reason to step back a second and rethink what has surely gone past the category of self-defense? i'm certainly not saying Israel is wrong. Actually, i'm saying Hamas is wrong. i'm just also saying that maybe Israel should maybe back off a little bit. They made their point.
- All that said, i don't understand why the media isn't being just a wee bit more objective in their coverage -- i'm hearing phrases like "a truce expired 10 days ago" when i should be hearing "terrorist organization Hamas broke a truce 10 days ago" and seeing headlines like "Israel pounds Gaza for third day" and little reminder of the fact that is is a response, even if it is a disproportionate one. It's kind of like how the media coverered the democratic nominees for the presidential candidacy, except instead of Obama, there's Palestine (his supporters are like the pro-Palestine protesters: overly emotional, and probably farther removed from the problems they're talking about than they're willing to let on), and that makes Clinton like Israel (who people will accept if they have to, since it seems like there's no way to get rid of it). Is that a fair analogy? Probably not. But given the example set for me by most major media outlets, i'd say i'm still doing alright.
But oh, i don't really even know what i'm talking about, aside from my crazy idea that we shouldn't go around killing people as a way to solve problems. i mean, i guess i just haven't learned from all the other times when it worked so well! Oh wait...no, that must have been something else.
i know this wasn't the cheerful holiday blog i may have predicted on facebook, filled with tales of London and Amsterdam and skiing in the Alps, but hopefully there's still time for that. Maybe i'll even reach far back in the bag of illusions (tricks are what a whore does for money) and write about something else, like the election, or my semester or something. Who knows? No one. Who cares? How many is less than no one?
6 comments:
Killing people has never solved anything...except the end to Hitler, WWI, the end of slavery in this country, the freedom of this country, the unification of this country....fior
and also--what is proportional?
400+ to 2 seems like it is not.
But is it? It cannot be quanitified by numbers alone
yes, but the problems of hitler, WWI, and slavery were all started by violence as a way to solve problems in the first place - you know, the Jewish problem and whatnot. i'm sure glad we solved that with Hitler's death...or no, wait, that's that one we're STILL TALKING ABOUT!
question: so when does the cycle stop?
answer: just right after we're done with this last little bit - isn't that right?
Hitler is but what one example over time where violence helped usher in peace and prosperity to some degree.
I agree--ideally, violence wouldn't exist. but it does. because, sometimes, it is the last resort, and ultimately, it has often worked in the end.
The cycle may never stop, and while that may be sad or disappointing, imagine the destruction that could be done should there be no counter to the force displayed by some groups, organizations, etc.
It is a sad necessity.
"Whenever I despair, I remember that the way of truth and love has always won. There may be tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they may seem invincible, but in the end, they always fail. Think of it: always." -- Gandhi
folks like gandhi and mlk (overused examples, i know, but efficient nonetheless) did imagine what would happen if there were no counter -- they didn't offer no counter, they just refused to offer a violent one. and that is even more effective because it doesn't just sweep the dust of dead bodies under the carpet, it actually changes peoples' hearts and minds, which is something it sounds like you've given up, sitting back an just accepting what you hopelessly refer to as "necessities."
yes, of course violence exists, but the point is that it is supposed to be the tool of the enemy, the act of evil, and as soon as we adopt the same measures, we take our own credibility out from under our own feet - we stomp on whatever goodness we grasped to maintain our superiority and lower ourselves to the same ground as those we condemn.
the sad part isn't that it's necessary, but that you believe it is.
I like Gandhi and MLK :)
Post a Comment