Tweet
Yeah, and who would believe in the six million, had history gone another way...
To me, Gaza holds a shocking resemblance to warsaw. Not quite there yet, but if some people here actually had a say in the matter, to would become a real one pretty quickly IMHO.
But i think i need to relativate my position: I am not saying, that hauling rockets on israel is the right thing to do for the hamas. Hell no. I am just saying that i can understand it as much as israel´s retaliation for it. Both could be called ´justified´, yet both is contraproductive, at best. I can as well understand that people who are directly involved in the matter would call my attitude lofty and out of touch. But maybe you need to have a certain distance to the matter in order to keep an open mind, unclouded by strong emotions, about it. Probably, if one of my friends or relatives were killed by one side or the other, i´d be as furious as anybody else involved in the matter. But this is exactly my point: This war (like most) feeds itself, creates its own children.
Any cease-fire btw would need time to work. If after it, some radicals still haul rockets, it should be regarded as a remnant of a time now dying. If it can be achieved that the ´terrorists´ loose support among their own ranks, they will eventually stop, and noone will take their place. If you kill them, someone will replace them most certainly, for the reasons i mentioned above.
Did anybody ever try to ask Hamas for ´terms´? LIKE if israel lost the war? What would be their proposal? Let them make one. If it´s totally outragous, like calling for the utter destruction of israel, then go fight them. If it´s not, take it as a base of negotiation. If the deal is based on their own proposals, they would dishonor themselves, if they wont stick to it (and thus loose a lot of support within their own ranks).
Another idea would be local agreements: Like if you live in a town at the border, and across it come the suicide-bombers or rockets. Arrange for a meeting of your mayor and ´officials´ of the ´terrorists´. Ask them what their issue is, and what can be done, to alliviate it. I imagine, sometimes could be as simple as (´T´ = ´terrorist´, ´M´=`mayor´):
T:´The wall blocks the way to our fields, which we need to cultivate, in order to survive. And we need water for them, too, which you are denying to us.´
M:´So, if we open up the wall, and grant free passage for the farmers and their aids to the fields and give you sufficient water, would you stop killing us?´
T:´We just want a decent live. Most of us anyways. I cant give a gurantee for the most radicals of my people - they might still take action on their own. And of course we´d have to discuss, what exactly ´free passage´ and ´sufficient water´ means.´
M:´Well, it would be upto you, to tell us what you need. But then of course, it would also be upto you, to prevent your radicals from bombing us from then on. If we come to an agreement, then those who oppose it violently on either side must be treated as criminals by the local authorities. I might face trouble at home, too, when i tell my people, that we will give you water for free. Some wont understand it. I will have to tell them, that it´s not for free, but for peace and security. If that price wont be paid, i will get replaced by someone, who wont sit at the same table with you.´
T: `Of course. Reasonable men hard to find these days. On both sides, i suppose. We are both taking a lot of risk here, and I probably more than you. Maybe it would be a good idea, to share this risk with as many people as we can. Right now, any relation between one of us and one of yours seems like a personal risk. But the more we can make taking that risk, the less this risk really exists.´
M: ´We will need to convince people it´s worth risking it, first, tho. That´ll be upto us. I suggest we meet again and you prepare some details. Like how much water would be needed and what you would regard as ´free passage´.´
T: ´I will. I will also have to talk to my people. It might be, that more will be required. I can not gurantee, that this will be sufficient to all. So dont feel fooled, when i will bring you more than you asked for next time we meet. But i can assure you, that we are as sick of the killing as you are. For now, i will order my people to hold off, until next time we meet, at least. The quicker we come to a solution, the better. For all of us.´
As this would all be a local thing only, nobody would loose his face on behalf of the entity of his nation. There is more room for negotiation. Over time, neighboring, hostile, communities could establish common councils, in which each side can forward their complains.
In the end, there is just to ways: Mutual atrocities or co-existence. For co-existence, both sides need to have the means to exist in the first place, tho.
To me, Gaza holds a shocking resemblance to warsaw. Not quite there yet, but if some people here actually had a say in the matter, to would become a real one pretty quickly IMHO.
But i think i need to relativate my position: I am not saying, that hauling rockets on israel is the right thing to do for the hamas. Hell no. I am just saying that i can understand it as much as israel´s retaliation for it. Both could be called ´justified´, yet both is contraproductive, at best. I can as well understand that people who are directly involved in the matter would call my attitude lofty and out of touch. But maybe you need to have a certain distance to the matter in order to keep an open mind, unclouded by strong emotions, about it. Probably, if one of my friends or relatives were killed by one side or the other, i´d be as furious as anybody else involved in the matter. But this is exactly my point: This war (like most) feeds itself, creates its own children.
Any cease-fire btw would need time to work. If after it, some radicals still haul rockets, it should be regarded as a remnant of a time now dying. If it can be achieved that the ´terrorists´ loose support among their own ranks, they will eventually stop, and noone will take their place. If you kill them, someone will replace them most certainly, for the reasons i mentioned above.
Did anybody ever try to ask Hamas for ´terms´? LIKE if israel lost the war? What would be their proposal? Let them make one. If it´s totally outragous, like calling for the utter destruction of israel, then go fight them. If it´s not, take it as a base of negotiation. If the deal is based on their own proposals, they would dishonor themselves, if they wont stick to it (and thus loose a lot of support within their own ranks).
Another idea would be local agreements: Like if you live in a town at the border, and across it come the suicide-bombers or rockets. Arrange for a meeting of your mayor and ´officials´ of the ´terrorists´. Ask them what their issue is, and what can be done, to alliviate it. I imagine, sometimes could be as simple as (´T´ = ´terrorist´, ´M´=`mayor´):
T:´The wall blocks the way to our fields, which we need to cultivate, in order to survive. And we need water for them, too, which you are denying to us.´
M:´So, if we open up the wall, and grant free passage for the farmers and their aids to the fields and give you sufficient water, would you stop killing us?´
T:´We just want a decent live. Most of us anyways. I cant give a gurantee for the most radicals of my people - they might still take action on their own. And of course we´d have to discuss, what exactly ´free passage´ and ´sufficient water´ means.´
M:´Well, it would be upto you, to tell us what you need. But then of course, it would also be upto you, to prevent your radicals from bombing us from then on. If we come to an agreement, then those who oppose it violently on either side must be treated as criminals by the local authorities. I might face trouble at home, too, when i tell my people, that we will give you water for free. Some wont understand it. I will have to tell them, that it´s not for free, but for peace and security. If that price wont be paid, i will get replaced by someone, who wont sit at the same table with you.´
T: `Of course. Reasonable men hard to find these days. On both sides, i suppose. We are both taking a lot of risk here, and I probably more than you. Maybe it would be a good idea, to share this risk with as many people as we can. Right now, any relation between one of us and one of yours seems like a personal risk. But the more we can make taking that risk, the less this risk really exists.´
M: ´We will need to convince people it´s worth risking it, first, tho. That´ll be upto us. I suggest we meet again and you prepare some details. Like how much water would be needed and what you would regard as ´free passage´.´
T: ´I will. I will also have to talk to my people. It might be, that more will be required. I can not gurantee, that this will be sufficient to all. So dont feel fooled, when i will bring you more than you asked for next time we meet. But i can assure you, that we are as sick of the killing as you are. For now, i will order my people to hold off, until next time we meet, at least. The quicker we come to a solution, the better. For all of us.´
As this would all be a local thing only, nobody would loose his face on behalf of the entity of his nation. There is more room for negotiation. Over time, neighboring, hostile, communities could establish common councils, in which each side can forward their complains.
In the end, there is just to ways: Mutual atrocities or co-existence. For co-existence, both sides need to have the means to exist in the first place, tho.
Comment