Right to Defend

I would like to start this post with a hypothetical question.

If you're living peacefully in a house with your family, and a rowdy neighbor starts throwing dangerous things like empty bottles and rusted nails to your lawn, what would you do? Provided that there's no police (or the one around is not reliable).

Talk to him, probably. But then, if he doesn't listen? He just told you aggressively to leave, or just suffer the consequences. Then what if you don't have anywhere else to go? And no one else is around, so you'd have to stand for yourself. How long will it be until you bring the fight to him?

On a wider perspective, let's hypothetically say, that a neighboring country starts bombing your country, shooting rockets at your lawn, forcing your children to stay at home for fear of being hit by shrapnel. When told to stop, they recite rhetorics saying that you and your fellow countrymen should just die, for a rather obscure reason. How long will it be till your country decides to strike back to protect its people?

Yes, news-aware readers will know which countries I'm talking about. It's all over the news. Most news stations and newspapers and other news sources are putting the Israeli offensive on Gaza Strip as their headliners. And most of those I found (locally, at least) condemns the attack, emphasized the heavy casualties, and some outright condemns Israel for the 'inhuman' and 'unreasonable' offensive.

While I agree that the force used is excessive, I can somewhat understand the reasoning behind the offensive. Just look at the first three paragraphs for an illustration of my point of view. It's not exactly unreasonable to me when seen from that light. It was, after all, the Hamas that broke the cease-fire and rained rockets down on Israeli cities beforethe offensive. Isn't it within one country's right to defend its people? Yet most of the reactions and pieces I've seen around seemingly ignores this.

It's likely a major factor that most of the local publications I found (I live in Indonesia) are somewhat one-sided. They cite the effects of the offensive on the Palestine citizens of Gaza strip, showing pictures of the dying, the wounded, and the destroyed buildings. Almost none were made about the Hamas rocket attacks on November that damaged buildings in Israeli cities. Is it because there are few casualties and only damaged buildings, or was it selective publication? It's like dozens of rockets a day raining down on Israeli territory according to The Herald Tribune and BBC. One even exploded in the middle of a kindergarten. Luckily, the school activity's been suspended because of rocket attacks. Imagine if it wasn't so. Would that made the news?

It's not like I'm pro-Israel or something. I'm just curious about why people tend to forget that it was Hamas that started the conflict. It was them that provoked the attack. Truth be told, it was them who used Palestine civilians as human shields by launching rockets from densely populated areas. How would the Israel be able to respond without civilian casualties? And yet, now they're crying about how the Israelis are the only ones to blame. All while being the ones who brought this upon themselves and the civilians. The cynic side of me even said that this was what they're after all along. Civilian casualties within the Palestine population meant that they can cry to the World, especially Muslim nations that the Israelis are conducting a massacre. Never mind the fact that the Hamas is also shooting rockets into civilian populated areas.

Some of the responses from around the world, and even some from my own country made me feel sick too. They call for the Israelis to stop fighting unconditionally, while never mentioning any conditions for the Hamas. So it's wrong to shed Palestinian blood, but it's okay to shed Jewish blood? What's the difference between both of them? Blood's still blood. People's still people no matter their beliefs.

Well, that's a long rant. And now, to try to find solutions.

To stop this bloodletting, both sides must stop violence. Easier said than done, but it's the ultimate condition. A strong deterrent, either military or economically, must be able to force the two to stop fighting. This can be done with US help, which might be a good place for Mr. Obama to make a good show in front of the Muslim world.

If Mr. Obama can force the Israel to stop the offensive, while the UN can deploy an international peacekeeping force empowered to intervene and stop any hostile activity from the Hamas, it might do. It's a gamble, but if Mr. Obama can pull that off, it'll boost his credibility in the eye of the Muslim World, and it'll aid any subsequent mediating effort from his side. Then they can talk.

Which, for that to happen, the Hamas should at least hold back on their goals on eradicating Israel. And Israel should stop seeing Hamas as a terrorist entity. Both sides should acknowledge each other (Which is the whole point. The Arab Nations must acknowledge Israel as a nation. It's the only way to have peace there). It would be much easier if the Hamas can reconcile with Palestine Authority, and talk as a united Palestine, as a country, to negotiate with Israel. Then divide the land between the two. Palestine and Israel. And place the Jerusalem area under an international jurisdiction.

About the peacekeeping force, an interesting idea is mentioned by Tom Clancy in his novel 'The Sum of All Fears' about putting the Jerusalem area under the authority of the Vatican and the Swiss Guard. Well, now that wouldn't really be feasible, but a Turkish contingent might do the trick, seeing that they're a reputed secular country with Islamic majority.

It's just my opinion, though. Politicians, historians, statesman, great people all, have tried to solve this conflict for years, and none succeeded. I just hope that the conflict will end as swiftly as possible. By any means necessary. For the good of people living there, Jewish or Muslims alike.