Both sides have video footage and versions of events that back their claims about what happened aboard the ship bringing aid to the blockaded Palestinians in Gaza.
What seems obvious to me is that they're both right and both wrong. Of course, the flotilla was meant to be a provocation, as well as bringing humanitarian aid. The Israeli's are probably correct in saying they offered to let the aid be delivered another way, and that was refused.
Those details miss the point. This is about the morality of the blockade itself. The fight was not about some tons of food and medicine being delivered; it was about world approval. The flotilla of humanitarian aid was an attempt to influence world opinion about the morality of the blockade. Even if it is legal, is it right?
Of course, it is not right either for Palestinians to throw rocks and rockets at Israelis. But much of the western world's people do not look approvingly when a powerful nation with abundant resources lays siege and blocks passage into and out of a poor and weaker nation, whose people are suffering and are no major threat to the region.
As much as I feel for the historical plight of the Jews, when Israel then becomes the oppressor and responds disproportionally to the provocations, my sympathy begins to shift to the underdog that could not possibly match them in resources or power. Their only recourse has been rocks and small-time rockets.
No solution is possible, however, as long as each clings to the role of victim. Mutual recognition of stalemate and mutual interests, brokered by a third party, is the only hope.
That's what I think.
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
They both pull at our heart strings legitimately, and they they both make it clear that they want to continue to fight to the death - last man left standing. Whatever force might point to a solution, it's not on the table as far as I can see. I'm not so sure that third parties help very much in this one - as all third parties are aligned, including us. It reminds me of the Belfast/IRA conflict. It needed 40 years of frustration and the aging and death of some of the most rabid antagonists before a tenuous peace, still quite fragile. It also reminds me of Tito's Yugoslavia, a country where this kind of hatred was suppressed by force. That worked for 50 years, then turned into a bloodbath when Tito died as if the conflicts were yesterday. Until Israel or Palestine proves otherwise, I expect they ought to be put on the list of "rogue states" and watched as carefully as the other people on that list.
ReplyDelete