Hi everybody,
Well, the Daily Reeder has passed another milestone today. I've been checking my posts for new comments (I admit it, all those who've posted comments so far have been by relatives), and upon checking my monumental post on the ongoing conflict in Gaza, I found a comment by someone named Mister Sneaky.
I had been planning a segment like this, where I would respond to comments posted in response, but I didn't get an opportunity until now. So, without any more rambling, let me introduce to you... Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Heart, wait, no, wrong intro. Let me introduce you to the first edition of my new segment... REEDBACK!
Mister Sneaky had some really good things to say. Here was his comment in its entirety:
"Mr. Reeder,What do you have in mind for a two-state solution?One pressing problem, I would say, is that neither Hamas nor the Israeli government has ever expressed a genuine commitment to abide by the relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions (centrally, 242 and 338). Israel was long opposed to the creation of a third state between itself and Jordan, and in recent years the most it has been willing to accept is a demilitarized Palestinian state consisting of Gaza, roughly 90% of a significantly cantonized West Bank, and a capital on the outskirts of Jerusalem rather than in predominantly Palestinian East Jerusalem. Hamas, of course, remains officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel -- a good example of the foolish pride you're talking about, since Israel has nuclear weapons and by far the most powerful military in the region.Since Hamas is powerless in the face of Israeli military might, it would be sensible for its leaders to change the group's charter so that it calls for some version of the two-state solution instead of Israel's destruction. This would shift the focus from Hamas' rejectionism to Israel's, which would in turn make it considerably more difficult for the U.S. to continue backing Israel in the face of near-universal international condemnation. But in order for Hamas to take this step, pragmatism will have to take the place of pride, and I'm not confident there's room in their rigid ideology for that.Glad to see you're thinking this stuff through.-S.B. True"
This is kind of like what I was saying. I believe both sides have made grievous moral errors. I have to admit I hadn't read the UN Security Resolutions. I realize why both sides have done what they did, even though I heartily object to their doing so.
One point that the video brought up is that those in Palestine would do well to look what Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Martin Luther King all did to succeed in their struggles. Did Gandhi launch rockets at the British? Did Martin Luther King dedicate himself to the destruction of White America? Did Mandela call for the massacre of all who were a part of the Apartheid regime, including the children?
No, no and hell no. These men all succeeded by employing peace in the face of violence. They knew that the only way they could dissolve the oppression was by being peaceful while the oppressors employed violence as only they knew how. Every sane, good person in the world eventually woke up and realized that the people were being oppressed. The occuppying powers, the White racism in South Africa, the White racism in America, the British oppression of India, were all forced to change their ways or get out.
Imagine if someone from Palestine decided to take this action. To admit that Palestine had done wrong to people, and then to shift from dedication to the destruction of Israel to wanting to be out from under Israel's grip. Because the Palestinians were there, and the Israelis came in, took over the land, then told everyone there where you can go, and all. Now, anyone would be pissed at this. However, this will only prolong the suffering for all involved. And as the video said, peace doesn't make you weaker, it actually takes more courage, more strength.
As to his first comment, "What do you have in mind for a two-state solution?" Well, I'm not the one making policy decisions. I don't live there. I will say this, though: Both sides will have to give some. Because this simply can't go on. And with Israel's nuclear capabilities, like Mr. Sneaky mentioned, the imperative is that much more pressing that both the Israelis and Palestinians put thier ideologies in the backseat, admit that they both made mistakes, and then work out the issues themselves.
You have really good ideas on this, though, Mister Sneaky, so keep reading this blog and post your responses if you feel compelled to do so. Well, this concludes the first edition of REEDBACK, on January 17, 2009. The segment will doubtless evolve as this blog does. Thanks for listening, everyone, and please continue to write in your responses.
This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Palestine. Show all posts
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Friday, January 2, 2009
Israel, Palestine: The fun never ends
To one&all,
Well, we're only 2 days into the new year, and already I've got lots of material. Of course, it is the kind of material that you don't know if you want to have. Let's put it this way: if you want to have a job that will be in demand for a long time to come, work to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lord knows we want it to end, but who can figure out a way? Every time we think we have it figured out, something happens and we're back to square one.
Apparently, in the last week, the Palestinian group Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israel. Israel then called in airstrikes against territory where Hamas was. However, Hamas operatives were scattered throughout, so many civilian casualties have been reported on the Palestinian side. As of January 2, 2009, 1 Israeli soldier, 3 civilians have been killed, 31 Israelis have been wounded. On the Palestinian side, around 400 have been killed, including 100 civilians, according to the UN, and more than 1,400 have been injured. And if this isn't enough, the Israelis are considering a ground attack against the Palestinians.
So who's at fault here? And what should be done to correct the situation? Well, this is a tricky issue, and will not be solved quickly or by one party alone. But it seems like Israel's vowing an all-out war against Hamas probably isn't the best idea. I do support Israel's right to defend itself. However, the more intense the attacks, the more likely civilian casualties. Civilians on both sides will suffer. And there is the issue of politics. Some speculate that heavily shelling Hamas could actually strengthen them by casting them as the victims, like what happened in Israel's war with Hezbollah in the Summer of 2006. So what options are we left with?
Now, I got a unique perspective on the event, which is very rare for me. My affiliate blog recently published a story of protests here in Denver against Israeli actions which involved Muslims and Christians alike. The encounter involved us talking to a man who was from here who had visited the area, and another man who was a Muslim originally from Morocco. One insight that we gained is that the great majority of people want to live in peace.
However, the Palestinians also bare some responsibility. According to this observer, Israel's actions are a necessary act of self-defense, and those in Hamas are cynically manipulating the civilian casualties to advance their agenda. I obviously don't support terrorist actions or terrorist organizations, and like I said earlier, I do support Israel's right to defend itself. It seems that on this side as well as the Israeli side, they have not honored the ceasefire agreement, and their refusal to make any concession can only worsen the situation.
So, what to do? On both sides, the powers that be, on both sides, have an extraordinary emotional momentum that keeps any kind of change from happening. Thankfully, there are some there who recognize that this simply cannot continue. But the momentum keeps the attacks going, whether it be the militant Hamas, or the Israelis, wanting vengeance.
Unfortunately, the US has had a hand in this. No politician in America could ever afford to admit anything wrong about Israel. This was one of the things that the McCain campaign accused Obama of, hence Joe the Plumber and others proclaiming that a vote for Obama would mean death to Israel. However, Obama, considered one of the more dovish politicians, fully asserts his support of Israel. On the website change.gov, where he outlines his agenda (look under foreign policy and scroll about halfway down), he says his administration will seek to "ensure a strong US-Israeli partnership...Support Israel's right to self defense, and...support foreign assistance to Israel".
Now, again, I'm not against Israel, and I am as much concerned about the well-being of their civilian population as I am about Palestine's. I should also note that on that same page, the Obama team pledged to "work with Israelis and Palestinians-to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security", and that he will use diplomacy to achieve this end. My point here is that our political discourse does emphasize too much one side of the issue. To side totally with either Israel or Palestine, I believe, would be irresponsible and would work against any solution that could present itself. It doesn't help that the media seems all too happy to present this one side of the issue, rather than look at the complexity of it.
Anyway, I'd like to leave you with these videos. They present a wonderful argument on the subject. In fact, check out the channel of the guy who makes them. Anyway, I hope that the video leaves you with some more understanding of the issue. I also hope that this post could give you a little insight into a complex and persistent issue, which lies very close to this blogger's heart. To sum up, one hurdle we will have to overcome in this is pride.
Whether you are allied with Israel or Palestine, you are going to have to admit that your side made some mistakes. As long as both sides don't the problem will keep spiraling out of control. The situation unfolding there is likely to keep Obama and Hillary busy from the first day, but it will take more than just them to fix this. It will take the courage to fess up and admit that you made mistakes, grave ones. But, this is a true act of courage. Anyway, that's it for now. Hope to have another post up soon.
For the first time in the year 2009, This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Well, we're only 2 days into the new year, and already I've got lots of material. Of course, it is the kind of material that you don't know if you want to have. Let's put it this way: if you want to have a job that will be in demand for a long time to come, work to find a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Lord knows we want it to end, but who can figure out a way? Every time we think we have it figured out, something happens and we're back to square one.
Apparently, in the last week, the Palestinian group Hamas launched rocket attacks against Israel. Israel then called in airstrikes against territory where Hamas was. However, Hamas operatives were scattered throughout, so many civilian casualties have been reported on the Palestinian side. As of January 2, 2009, 1 Israeli soldier, 3 civilians have been killed, 31 Israelis have been wounded. On the Palestinian side, around 400 have been killed, including 100 civilians, according to the UN, and more than 1,400 have been injured. And if this isn't enough, the Israelis are considering a ground attack against the Palestinians.
So who's at fault here? And what should be done to correct the situation? Well, this is a tricky issue, and will not be solved quickly or by one party alone. But it seems like Israel's vowing an all-out war against Hamas probably isn't the best idea. I do support Israel's right to defend itself. However, the more intense the attacks, the more likely civilian casualties. Civilians on both sides will suffer. And there is the issue of politics. Some speculate that heavily shelling Hamas could actually strengthen them by casting them as the victims, like what happened in Israel's war with Hezbollah in the Summer of 2006. So what options are we left with?
Now, I got a unique perspective on the event, which is very rare for me. My affiliate blog recently published a story of protests here in Denver against Israeli actions which involved Muslims and Christians alike. The encounter involved us talking to a man who was from here who had visited the area, and another man who was a Muslim originally from Morocco. One insight that we gained is that the great majority of people want to live in peace.
However, the Palestinians also bare some responsibility. According to this observer, Israel's actions are a necessary act of self-defense, and those in Hamas are cynically manipulating the civilian casualties to advance their agenda. I obviously don't support terrorist actions or terrorist organizations, and like I said earlier, I do support Israel's right to defend itself. It seems that on this side as well as the Israeli side, they have not honored the ceasefire agreement, and their refusal to make any concession can only worsen the situation.
So, what to do? On both sides, the powers that be, on both sides, have an extraordinary emotional momentum that keeps any kind of change from happening. Thankfully, there are some there who recognize that this simply cannot continue. But the momentum keeps the attacks going, whether it be the militant Hamas, or the Israelis, wanting vengeance.
Unfortunately, the US has had a hand in this. No politician in America could ever afford to admit anything wrong about Israel. This was one of the things that the McCain campaign accused Obama of, hence Joe the Plumber and others proclaiming that a vote for Obama would mean death to Israel. However, Obama, considered one of the more dovish politicians, fully asserts his support of Israel. On the website change.gov, where he outlines his agenda (look under foreign policy and scroll about halfway down), he says his administration will seek to "ensure a strong US-Israeli partnership...Support Israel's right to self defense, and...support foreign assistance to Israel".
Now, again, I'm not against Israel, and I am as much concerned about the well-being of their civilian population as I am about Palestine's. I should also note that on that same page, the Obama team pledged to "work with Israelis and Palestinians-to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security", and that he will use diplomacy to achieve this end. My point here is that our political discourse does emphasize too much one side of the issue. To side totally with either Israel or Palestine, I believe, would be irresponsible and would work against any solution that could present itself. It doesn't help that the media seems all too happy to present this one side of the issue, rather than look at the complexity of it.
Anyway, I'd like to leave you with these videos. They present a wonderful argument on the subject. In fact, check out the channel of the guy who makes them. Anyway, I hope that the video leaves you with some more understanding of the issue. I also hope that this post could give you a little insight into a complex and persistent issue, which lies very close to this blogger's heart. To sum up, one hurdle we will have to overcome in this is pride.
Whether you are allied with Israel or Palestine, you are going to have to admit that your side made some mistakes. As long as both sides don't the problem will keep spiraling out of control. The situation unfolding there is likely to keep Obama and Hillary busy from the first day, but it will take more than just them to fix this. It will take the courage to fess up and admit that you made mistakes, grave ones. But, this is a true act of courage. Anyway, that's it for now. Hope to have another post up soon.
For the first time in the year 2009, This is the Daily Reeder, Over&out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)