Monday, January 5, 2009

Middle East Mayhem

World is divided between right and wrong. Someone's right could be someone's wrong. 

In the case of middle-east conflict, the root cause of the matter seems to be that Hamas (an organization that publicly uses terrorism as a means to achieve its goals) is leading Palestine (vs. a much more diplomatic Palestine National Authority). However, Hamas came into power through democratically held elections. In that sense, one would suppose Israel's real issue is with Palestine people and not Hamas. 

If at all Israel needs to amend the situation, it needs to wage public opinion against Hamas.  Lets face it, no one wants to see their homes getting bombed and their children, women and youth being killed. By attacking Palestine, it could be prompting more civilian Palestines to think or be like Hamas. A moderate individual from Palestine could now very well decide to become a revolutinary now. What good can it do for Israel? 

Instead, Israel should have focused first on diplomatic means to resolve the issue. With "new" US government support, they could have possibly gone quite far with it. As any able statesman would agree, there are subtle ways of turning people opinion against a Government that uses means of terror to rule. At the end of the day, a civilian living in Palestine cares no less for peace than a civilian living in Israel.

Another thing that this conflict brings out is a template for other countries to follow in future. UN clearly seems to be an ineffective organization, sadly, yet again. [after its failure in Darfur and continued failure for improving situation in Zimbabwe]. In near memory, UN has never been able to take any concrete steps for benefit of people; they always seem to be bound by the diplomacy of the Security Council. UN , for all practical purposes, has been reduced to a red-tape organization. As regards US, they have officially endorsed Israel attack. The other day, I was watching an interview of Dick Cheney. He responded that Israel did not seek"US okay" before starting the aggression. 

I wonder why anyone needs to take an okay from US before trying to solve their international disputes. They should be going to UN; but oh well, I just mentioned earlier how efficient UN is in solving such problems, so never mind.  Coming back to response from US, does that mean that US will now endorse any such similar actions by other countries as well. Does it mean that any country can now attack Somalia if their vessels have been attacked by Somalian pirates? How about Pakistan and India situation? Routinely, terrorists from Pakistan (whether they are State sponsored or endorsed is disputed though) cross the border into Indian territory and rage a proxy war there. If India attacks Pakistan, will US or World react similarly as it has done in recent Israel-Palestine conflict.

When will we stop this hyprocrisy? When will our leaders actually start caring about the people who do not want war, but to be able to live peacefully? Why cant diplomacy be in vogue again?

I am definitely not pro-war and I firmly believe that any sort of aggression should be used only as a last resort. 

No comments: