The Unmaking of Gaza
When attempting to understand the complexities of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, it is crucial to recognise the extreme pain and misery that both sides have experienced. Following horrifying atrocities, there are never simple fixes or answers. But in the midst of the suffering, a firm compulsion to find peace becomes imperative. I fear that my observations, as an outsider attempting to empathise with the people of Israel and Palestine, will come across as naive and ignorant. In any case, I’ll attempt to find a way to break away from the vicious circle of violence
the current state(s):
Israel’s identity as both a Jewish and democratic state has been increasingly at odds with itself, as successive governments have prioritised Jewish interests at the expense of democratic values. Political forces, especially Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party, advocated for Jewish settlement expansion over the pursuit of a negotiated peace. Critics of Israel’s policies in the occupied Palestinian territories argue that they resemble aspects of Apartheid. Israel’s system of checkpoints, barriers, and restricted roads limit the freedom of movement for Palestinians and create physical barriers between Palestinian communities. Netanyahu was such a staunch opponent of the two-state solution that he was content to let Hamas continue to exist due to their hostility towards Fatah and Israel reaching an agreement on a two-state solution.
Netanyahu’s longevity in office was mainly due to his tough guy no-nonsense approach to defence. However, despite mounting evidence of an impending attack, including intelligence warnings from various sources. The Israeli leadership convinced themselves that it wasn’t in Hamas’ best interests to attack. Israeli leadership failed to consider that the welfare of the Palestinian people is of little concern to Hamas. In fact, Hamas views the deaths of civilian Palestinians at the hands of Israelis as enhancing their cause. Hamas perpetrated such a horrific attack to incite Israel into retaliating with such extreme force, knowing that images of a vastly superior Israeli military attacking Palestine would cause international outrage and lead to condemnation of Israel.
What would be an appropriate response to such a horrific attack? Israel was left in a moral bind. How could they retaliate against an enemy numbering only in the tens of thousands but hidden within a civilian population of nearly two million. The shortcomings of the Israeli government led them to react in rage without a clear end goal.
The Gaza occupation is morally unjustifiable, subjecting millions of innocent civilians to a siege that leads to countless unnecessary deaths and squalid conditions. Israeli leaders appear to lack a clear understanding of the siege’s objectives and its consequences. What is the objective? To destroy Hamas? To force neighbouring countries to accept fleeing Palestinians? What happens if Israel succeeds in wiping out Hamas? In all likelihood a new group will fill the void left by Hamas, perhaps fuelled by the newly radicalised volunteers. What happens to Gaza in the next decade? A continued Israeli occupation? So far, the Israeli government has only a military response to the conflict. There needs to be a political one to find a lasting peace.
I can understand the sense of injustice Israelis feel towards the condemnation they have been subjected to. It seems like a set of double standards. The Israelis are judged by standards that were not applied to conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. After the horrific attack they had to act to ensure this could never happen again. But the denial of basic human rights and the ongoing oppression of the Palestinian people is untenable and will lead to Israel becoming outcasts. There has already been a significant increase in anti-Semitic sentiments
the way forward:
The principles and mechanisms established in the Good Friday Agreement, which ended hostilities in Northern Ireland, can provide viable solutions for settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Central to the Good Friday Agreement was a commitment to upholding human rights and promoting equality for all citizens. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there must be a focus on addressing the human rights concerns of both Israelis and Palestinians, including issues such as access to land, freedom of movement, and the rights of refugees.
The Good Friday Agreement recognised the importance of reconciliation and healing in the aftermath of conflict. Similarly, in the Israeli-Palestinian context, there needs to be a concerted effort toward fostering mutual understanding, empathy, and forgiveness between Israelis and Palestinians. Finally, the Good Friday Agreement received substantial international support and guarantees, providing a framework for implementation and oversight. Similarly, in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, there would need to be robust international involvement, including the backing of key stakeholders such as the US, United Nations, the European Union, and regional powers. International guarantees could help ensure compliance with agreements, provide resources for reconstruction and development, and offer security assurances to both Israelis and Palestinian.
Ultimately, the path to peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict demands courage, vision, and a willingness to transcend entrenched narratives and prejudices. It is my fervent hope that through sustained dialogue, diplomacy, and cooperation, a future of peace and prosperity can be realised for all who call this land home.
