There is an excellent blog that I read daily called What Would Jack Do?. The writer is smart, funny and on target 99% of the time. But he did a post this week that I found very disappointing. In the post titled "Really...What would you do?", he proposes a simple analogy that he believes represents the Israeli/Gaza situation. Here, in his own words, is the analogy:
"Consider this scenario: your neighbors, who have made it clear that they cannot stand you, regularly throws rocks at your house. Sometimes the rocks miss, because your neighbors aren't exactly the reincarnation of Peyton Manning. Often the rocks do hit their target- breaking windows, injuring family members, and just generally wreaking havoc and destroying your household's peace of mind. OK, so how long do you think it would be before you decided that you have no choice but to take action against your neighbor- to protect your property, as well as the safety and well-being of your family? I submit that you wouldn't tolerate this situation for long without responding, because you're going to protect you and yours."
Of course, in this analogy, you are Israel and your neighbor is Gaza (run by Hamas). You obviously have the right to protect yourself from those evil Hamas "rock throwers". The problem with this analogy is that the situation between Israel and Gaza is just not that simple. I would propose a different analogy:
You are upset because some members of the family next door don't like you and have been guilty of throwing rocks at your house. So you build a wall around the house next door and place armed guards at that wall. Then you try to starve the neighbors into submission by refusing to let adequate food and medicine reach their house, while refusing to talk to them because they are "rock throwers".
They rebel by throwing more rocks. So you then take a machine gun and some grenades next door and proceed to kill anyone you find, whether they are guilty of throwing rocks or not. When your other neighbors try to tell you you are overreacting, you insist you are just protecting your house from the rock throwers.
If you're going to make an analogy, then you must make sure it accurately portrays the situation. If it doesn't, then it is just propaganda.
The fact is that Israel does have a right to exist, and they do have the right to protect themselves -- but not in any way at any cost. Gaza also has a right to exist, a right to receive food and medical supplies and a right to choose their own leaders (no matter what anyone else thinks of those leaders).
A cease-fire worked in the past, but the Israelis and Americans refused to negotiate unless Hamas surrendered first. That's ridiculous. Both sides need to agree to another cease-fire, but this time there must be some real negotiations -- without any pre-conditions from either side.
Most people know that a "two-state" solution is the answer, but it will never be achieved by fighting and war. Negotiating is the only way. America could help this happen, but only if we can be fair to both sides. If we continue the Bush policy of supporting anything Israel wants to do, then it would be better for us to get out of the way and let someone else do it.
The current attack by Israel (and supported by the U.S.) will accomplish nothing but to kill innocent civilians and create more terrorists.
I agree with you but with one really important caveat: Israel must stop taking more land (create and expand more settlements and then wall them in ect. as you state in your analogy) because THAT is the real problem. Other than that, I agree.
ReplyDeleteThe analogy also starts with the concept of neighbors, and Israel actually occupies Palestine. Very hard to reconcile. But as the occupied WH chose to make war on two countries in return for an attack by a fanatical group slightly related to one of the countries, so Israel decides to hyper-react. This executive branch has committed one atrocity after another, when it leaves we can start a rational process.
ReplyDeleteObama's position on Israel will not be much different from Bush's.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say who has the "right" to the land since the conflict is so very old. 3200 years ago the "sea peoples" were repulse from Egypt and settled in the Levant. They became the Philistines and then the Palestinians. Around the same time the Hebrews wandered in from the desert, and the two groups have been at each other's throats ever since.
ReplyDeleteI'd hoped with the new administration and with Hillary Clinton at State, this three-thousand year old conflict might somehow finally move toward a resolution.
But now I wonder if it will ever be solved short of genocide. You'd think the Israeli's-- of all people-- wouldn't go there. But I wouldn't bet on it.
It's stupid and it's sad.