Another approach

Israel is often blamed for using to much force in Gaza, but the Israelis retaliate accusing Hamas of bombing ISrael for the past 8 years. I feel that this is a tough issue because how is Israel not suppose to re-act? I feel that Israel could put a stop to the attacks if they invested into preventing the missles from entering PAlestine. There are major tunnels going from Egypt into Gaza were weapons are smuggled. I feel that Israel should be putting more pressure upoun Egypt who they have good realations with into making sure no more arms go in. This would hopeful cut back on missles fired into ISrael

Obama Should Consider Inviting Arab Nations to Help Solve Israeli-Palestinian Issues

In the context of United State’s involvement in the recent Gaza-Israeli conflict, I thought this interview between the Consulting Editor from Council on Foreign Relations and Mohammad Yaghi was an stimulating alternate perspective. As we have already examined, the US has been portrayed by multiple media sources as an integral player in future negotiations processes. Besides the worthwhile viewpoint on the issue on the whole by Yaghi, his advice on the inclusion of Arab Nations in the resolutions was a new solution for me. He explains that the the Palestinian Authority President lacks legitimacy in the face of Hamas and that negotiations will only prevail if they are opened to the Arab League.

His main point, it seems, is that Palestinians are angry and the country is divided--they are past the point of bilateral negotiations with Israeli. He believes that if peace is to be realized in this area, it must include other Arab countries because of the inherent connectivity of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. I viewed this opinion, though it still includes the US, as a counter-Western perspective. Yaghi argues that Arab nations and Israel must come to a peace agreement with Palestine in order to neutralize other long-standing issues. He believes that it is from within this geographic area that peace can be achieved, but that the peace process is no longer a bilateral issue and should not be approached as one.

Border Restrictions and Post-conflict Aid

This is partially a response to Stephen's post, but I wanted to post this video and sort of expand the discussion to the question of border restrictions as a way to control aid and exert political influence.

This is a video from Al-Jazeera English describing the black market in Gaza where humanitarian aid is sold for other necessities, such as schoolbooks. This report is from about a month ago, so the situation may be changing as we speak. I did find a more recent AP article, and as Stephen and Laura mentioned it appears that the longer-term issues facing recovery in Gaza will not be a question of humanitarian aid (the article reports $4-5 billion in pledged international aid) but one of restrictive borders that are preventing infrastructure-based aid from coming to Gaza.

This Reuters article reiterates the issue of border crossing impeding the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza. According to these two articles, both Israel and Egypt are putting heavy restrictions on what can pass through. Israel cites the need to screen reconstruction projects (and thus the materials entering the Gaza strip) on an individual basis so as to prevent these projects from benefitting Hamas. Egypt, on the other hand, is using border restrictions to pressure Hamas into making amends with Mahmoud Abbas.

I think border screening/security can become a tough issue during and after violent conflicts. Border restrictions can slow down the flow of humanitarian aid into high-need areas, and the individual screening process for reconstruction projects may bog down efforts to rebuild essential infrastructure like housing, medical facilities, schools, etc. Is Israel justified in taking these kinds of measures if it prevents aid from reaching Hamas? Is Egypt justified in using restrictions to pressure some sort of reconciliation between Hamas and the West Bank P.A.?

One State, Two State

I think it's important to discuss the fesability of a One state vs. Two state solution. Especially considering the literature that we just read.
I feel that a one state solution is not possible for a number of reasons. I feel the history of the conflict is to complex for one. Years of conlonial rule and decision made for the people not by the people was the start of a long history in a short amount of time, relatively speaking. This history has also left devastating scars upon the each side of the conflict. almost every Israeli Jew or Palesetinian has a story of suffering. I also feel that Israelis would not let this happen. The issue of safety and security is a hug deal for Israeli citizens and always comes up in peace negotiations. Finally as long as Hamas exists as the Palestinians representitive government and has in there charter that Israel cannot exist a one state is not possible. Polls over the years have also showed that both Palestinians and Israelis are in favor of a two state solution and that they want peace to exist. If anyone has further ideas or would like to elaborate tha'd be great

"The Gaza War as reality television" / Justice vs. Crime

In an article that I saw linked off of the Haaretz page KC pointed out, Bradley Burston writes about his personal conflicts regarding Israel's actions in and media portrayals of the war.  He comments:

The war had gone on only a few days when Israel Channel 10 television began interspersing coverage of Palestinian rockets exploding in the Israeli coastal city of Ashkelon and commercials for the Israeli version of the veteran reality show Survivor, in which one of the contestants is shown saying of the rival tribe "We're gonna kick their butts!" 

He then quickly shifts his discussion to a more personal and serious issue.  He shares that as a former army medic, he needs to adamantly question if the Israeli government was using phosphorus.  Many army officials and experts were asked about this and none gave a clear response that they were not using it.  Terrified for what his country could be doing to people with the horrific effects of phosphorus (extensive flesh damage due to intense, long-lasting burning), he brings into question the precarious position of the occupier.  Fighting an enemy which is interspersed into the regular population (which includes Israelis as well) creates an especially fuzzy line for a just war.  

Burston writes that restrictions have been in place to protect civilians in these scenarios, but that several were lifted for the attack on Gaza.  Thus the question of war crimes rears its ugly head.  He quotes a previous article in Haaretz where philospher Yirmiyahu Yovel says,

"The Gaza War dramatically demonstrated that the conjunction of justified combat and war crimes is not an individual instance of this war or that, rather it is becoming a permanent model for the struggle between Israelis and Palestinians. As long as this is a struggle between two populations, occupier and occupied, and as long as there is no peace between Israel and an independent Palestinian state existing beside it, the Israeli soul will be divided between justice and crime, holding onto each other with no way out, like two Siamese twins." 

He ends by suggesting that Israel needs to support the creation of a strong Palestine in order to end this conflict...

I found it very interesting to hear the conerned Israeli voice in actual fear of what his country is doing.  Having almost no previous exposure to alternative sources, especially op-ed type pieces, I am appreciative of this glimpse into the stress and internal conflict that this situation creates in a citizen.  Plus, he brings up an incredibly valid moral dilemma-- 'justified combat' versus war crimes.  Where is the line?  Who decides?

New Possibilities Regarding Palestinian National Consensus Government

A report by the Palestine Media Center states that Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad announced Saturday that he has submitted his resignation to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. The resignation will take effect after the formation of a Palestinian unity government, but no later than the end of March. The PLO and Hamas have demonstrated highly different policies regarding the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, however unity between the two entities would be seen as a momentous step forward regarding the potential for peace in the region. Dialogue between the two Palestinian governments is expected to resume in Cairo on Tuesday and the article raises an interesting point with the following: "The Egyptian sponsored talks have raised high expectations that an agreement to end the inner Palestinian division and restoring the geographic and political reunification between the West Bank and Gaza Strip." According to the article, reaching an agreement between the factions will enable the start of the reconstruction efforts in Gaza and many Palestinians see unity as an essential matter following the right wing victory in the recent Israeli elections. The process of reunification would be difficult and probably bloody, and with the risk of failure and further division between Hamas and the PLO, is reunification a realistic endeavor? The resignation is seen as a step forward because it leaves room for more PLO officials with the credentials necessary for dialogue with Hamas, but should the PLO risk loosing valuable diplomats regarding Israel in order to gain diplomats to work with Hamas?

Pro-Palestinian Demonstrators Outside Davis Cup

ESPN.com reports that demonstrators clashed with police outside Baltic Stadium in Malmo, Sweden as the Swedes won the doubles match Saturday to take a 2-1 lead against Israel in the Davis Cup series.
Davis Cup officials allowed only 300 special guests inside the 4,000 seat hall citing security issues providing a depressing atmosphere for Sweden's victory. Israeli tennis player Andy Ram said it was a "stupid decision" to play the match behind closed doors and that "playing without a crowd is like playing a practice match." 7,000 pro-Palestinian demonstrators gathered in a square downtown to listen to speeches condemning Israel's offensive in Gaza and urging support for Palestinians. Organizers of the "stop the match" protest had said the demonstration would be peaceful, but extreme-left activists had vowed to disrupt the match. About 100 people were apprehended and at least six were arrested for rioting, there were no reports of injuries.
This article interests me because it demonstrates the reaches of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into wider interactions of the international community, such as sports. When an Israeli athlete travels abroad, is he or she obligated to show their feelings regarding recent events? Could an Israeli athlete's expression of dissatisfaction with recent escalations by their government's military serve any real purpose, or are they obligated to show unwavering support and be 'patriotic'? When one looks at the history of the conflict in light of international athletic competition, the immediate event that comes to mind is the tragic Munich Olympic Games in 1972. However more recently, Israeli tennis star Shahar Peer was denied a visa preventing her from competing in the in the Sony Ericsson World Tennis Association Tour in Dubai. Although these events are less significant in comparison to the overall violence and bloodshed, I feel that there is something to be said regarding the "exterior" or indirect components of the conflict, such as athletics. Why do countries find it necessary to allow the conflict into seemingly unrelated events?