No one cares about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict anymore
This is the main issue. The underlying idea that we will never come to a solution, as realistic as it is, is probably not the best way to look at this crisis that has been debated thousands and hundreds of times. By hiding behind the idea that this is a no-solution problem that we should stay out of, they in fact are hiding the fact that they do not care, anymore. Even though I believe we do not care, due to the fact that bombs are not flying over our heads, which is a completely understandable and realistic approach, I think the main problem is the way we approached the problem. Why continue debating over who gets to live in Gaza, and why, and on what basis? To some extent, it is clear that both sides have provided strong enough arguments (even though we should not forget the role of diplomatic play, financial bonds and lobbyists) or the rest of the world would not be as divided on the subject as it is today. Has arguing against a belief, a religion ever ended in a rational, selfless and comprehensive response from the other side of the bargaining table? Not so much. Sadly, throughout time, religion has often served as an excuse for acts of war, crimes of war, colonialism and infringing upon human rights. If an individual, collective group or community feels guided by a superior sense of entitlement, that they call religion, I do not see how it is rationally conceivable to argue with them.
However, beliefs are one thing, acts and facts are another.
Here is why I argue we might have been, for the past weeks (and years), looking at the problem the « wrong » way. Out of all the recent deaths in Palestine, 30% were children, Hamas is a terrorist group, 3 young Israeli men were killed, and the Israeli government has officially sent its troops to Gaza, killing more people, and are not intending to stop any time soon.
These are facts and acts that are carried out as a reaction. The problem here is that we are going around in circles trying to defend one community’s reaction or another, as if to justify the atrocities that one group is inflicting upon the other, or their own civilians. Now that war has officially erupted, its safe to say the ideological disputes and privileges are nor here nor there. Whatever the ending of this war will be, no group will ideologically surrender to another. That is why I strongly believe in acting upon any action that goes against international law, in the most neutral way possible. Hamas is a terrorist group, and they do not in any way represent the majority of the Palestinian population, although we could assume they probably do feel a similar sentiment of injustice towards the Jewish population implemented in Gaza. The Israeli governments action plan, sending troops to Gaza, probably as well, does not reflect what the Jewish diaspora was waiting for. That is why it is crucial to adopt a unbiased view towards these groups and start to look at the actual actions of a branch of their own societies. However, one clear barrier to this mindset is the fact that the biggest powers in the world are supporting one side. I personally, am favorable to one side which I shall not divulge here, but can’t help to feel remorse and sadness for the other. This is why I have not participated in any activism concerning this conflict, I am not able to justify my choice of « side » enough to the point where I feel the other deserves to be hurt and persecuted. And this is what I truly feel many states are doing wrong, even though they have their diplomatic reasons that go back a long way. Supporting one side, at this point in time, implies supporting the idea the other side should suffer through war, and deserve an armed attack. Here, some will argue no one ever deserves to be dragged in a war, others will argue that in some cases it is completely justified, but that is beyond the point. However, is it that hard to tell your diplomatic ally it has gone too far? Has this never been done in history? I truly believe that picking sides and arguing for one another has gotten old. Even though thoroughly criticized, the UN initiative of a 5 hour ceasefire is a good start, it neutralizes the debate and emphasizes the operation on reducing war and attacks, putting both sides at the same « level ».
I do realize my opinion can be compared to utopia, yet I strongly believe in considering Hamas for the terrorist group it is and aiming to stop the absurd amount of rockets aimed at Palestinians. The real underlying issue here though, is that on one side the perpetrators are outlawed terrorists and on the other, terrorists that are backed up by the most powerful countries in the world. The fact that we are tempted to pick a side rather than intervene neutrally is not really because of what we believe in, who we find more in distress, but rather, one of the criminals is friends with the big guys, the other is not. One side is the underdog, the other is not, and I sincerely believe that Europeans, Asians, Americans, and even Middle Eastern’s choose according to this divide. (Unless of course you have been raised to think in one of the two specific ways). In the end though, they are both harming innocent people, so why continue to argue over who deserve to be bombed more?