Examining the Israeli-Hamas conflict
Israel has been undertaking a military
campaign against the Hamas residing in
the Gaza Strip beginning on November 14
with a death toll now approaching the
triple digits. The rampant misinformation
and competing propaganda have erased
virtually any trace of the original infractions
that led to armed conflict.
While the conflict has been raging for decades, the Israeli government has once again decided to take action. Ongoing rocket strikes from Gaza were previously aimed at targets near the border, however more recent strikes have been directed at Jerusalem, a target that was previously out of reach of most of the Hamas weaponry. Unfortunately, there's an approaching election in the country, which puts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a politically awkward position. If he chooses to maintain the effort against Hamas at its current intensity, he could be seen by the populace as being too moderate. Conversely, if he sends in the ground troops currently being amassed, he could be seen as unnecessarily escalating the conflict and endangering more Israeli lives.
The biggest understatement one could possibly make is that this is not a new problem. Israel has been a source of conflict in the region since its inception following World War II. In light of ongoing rocket strikes from the Gaza region, Israel has responded with a bombing campaign aimed at disabling military installations and killing leading members of Hamas. Canada, the United States and the European Union define Hamas as a terrorist organization, though they're not considered one by the U.N. The Gaza Strip has been under Hamas control since they won power in a 2006 election and proceeded to eliminate opposing fundamentalist groups. The stated objective of Hamas is to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with a Palestinian-Islamic system.
Neither group has a monopoly on the moral high ground and both have made major ethical mistakes in the decisions around the use of weaponry and political sway. Israel is famous for their use of propaganda as a tool for maneuvering into a political position that resounds internationally. Supporters of Gaza frame the conflict as a superpower seeking to exterminate a weaker neighbour. The Israeli strategy has worked incredibly well as anyone could tell from simply watching the third American presidential debate at the end of October. Both candidates could agree on very little other than that they are both staunch supporters of the Israeli plight.
The inherent argument against Israel is that it is a state formed by the United Nations as opposed to a region that naturally developed its own borders. This created deep-rooted resentment against the Jewish immigrants who were seen as intrusive, and for decades they've been fighting both regional and political challenges to their existence. The people who inhabited the land before were herded aside by the enormous influx of immigrants numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Since then, very little has changed in terms of position. The Israelis maintain that this is their rightful homeland while their neighbours continue to challenge the validity of their existence. With moderates being denounced as weak-willed, it seems unlikely that a peaceful solution will arise anytime in the foreseeable future.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
While the conflict has been raging for decades, the Israeli government has once again decided to take action. Ongoing rocket strikes from Gaza were previously aimed at targets near the border, however more recent strikes have been directed at Jerusalem, a target that was previously out of reach of most of the Hamas weaponry. Unfortunately, there's an approaching election in the country, which puts Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in a politically awkward position. If he chooses to maintain the effort against Hamas at its current intensity, he could be seen by the populace as being too moderate. Conversely, if he sends in the ground troops currently being amassed, he could be seen as unnecessarily escalating the conflict and endangering more Israeli lives.
The biggest understatement one could possibly make is that this is not a new problem. Israel has been a source of conflict in the region since its inception following World War II. In light of ongoing rocket strikes from the Gaza region, Israel has responded with a bombing campaign aimed at disabling military installations and killing leading members of Hamas. Canada, the United States and the European Union define Hamas as a terrorist organization, though they're not considered one by the U.N. The Gaza Strip has been under Hamas control since they won power in a 2006 election and proceeded to eliminate opposing fundamentalist groups. The stated objective of Hamas is to destroy the state of Israel and replace it with a Palestinian-Islamic system.
Neither group has a monopoly on the moral high ground and both have made major ethical mistakes in the decisions around the use of weaponry and political sway. Israel is famous for their use of propaganda as a tool for maneuvering into a political position that resounds internationally. Supporters of Gaza frame the conflict as a superpower seeking to exterminate a weaker neighbour. The Israeli strategy has worked incredibly well as anyone could tell from simply watching the third American presidential debate at the end of October. Both candidates could agree on very little other than that they are both staunch supporters of the Israeli plight.
The inherent argument against Israel is that it is a state formed by the United Nations as opposed to a region that naturally developed its own borders. This created deep-rooted resentment against the Jewish immigrants who were seen as intrusive, and for decades they've been fighting both regional and political challenges to their existence. The people who inhabited the land before were herded aside by the enormous influx of immigrants numbering in the hundreds of thousands. Since then, very little has changed in terms of position. The Israelis maintain that this is their rightful homeland while their neighbours continue to challenge the validity of their existence. With moderates being denounced as weak-willed, it seems unlikely that a peaceful solution will arise anytime in the foreseeable future.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
