Monday, January 05, 2009

Israel v. Hamas - who will YOU choose?

A quote for the TV series Peepshow that seems particularly pertinent given the ongoing events in the Middle East:

Jez: Mark likes Israel, I'm Palestine. Makes it much more interesting if you pick sides.
Now, I’m not going to claim that all of the coverage has taken on this sort of mindless, “which football team do you support” mentality. However reading some of the reporting has made me think that the most important things on the minds of many is not reporting or commenting on the facts, but rather justifying whichever side the reporter or commentator happens to support. It reminds me of the mindless fools who support political parties regardless of what that party happens to be doing at any given time.

Instinctively, I’d be inclined to side with Israel. That nation is fighting for survival in a region filled with people who would happily wipe them off the face of this earth. And they have to endure the constant threat of terror and regular attacks from Hamas. Frankly, they need to flex their muscles every now and again to remind people that they do have teeth, and will fight back if the need arises.

That said, I am also very aware that Israel has no time whatsoever for the concept of a proportionate response. There are the national equivalent of Begbie from Trainspotting - if you spill their pint, they are going to glass you in the face and then kick you to death for good measure. You can argue that Hamas should stop prodding the angry Israeli bear with a stick, but then again, you do have to concede that life in the Gaza Strip will lead to mass radicalisation.

The issues are far more important than simple side taking allows, and that is before you even consider the ramifications of the history of that region. Also, the Middle East situation is both stunningly complex and deeply human. This current conflict shows the human side to it; Hamas can’t afford to lose face by not attacking Israel, and the Israeli government will not lose face by allowing these attacks to go unpunished. It is very easy to take sides over here in the UK, far away from the conflict. If those who take sides so easily were in the Gaza Strip or in Israel, and took the time to experience how the different sides are living, I suspect they might be less willing to take sides. And also might realise that it is going to take slightly more than some chin-stroking pontificating in national newspapers and in various blogs to improve life in that troubled region.

Whose side am I on? Neither. I’m against the violence, but equally I can understand how difficult it will be to stop the violence. And I am absolutely sure that the mindless partisan side taking and advice giving here in the UK will achieve nothing more than filling column inches and blogposts.

Labels: ,

3 Comments:

At 1:36 pm , Blogger Mark Wadsworth said...

You can make that choice in my Fun Online Poll.

 
At 1:48 pm , Blogger The Nameless Libertarian said...

The Israelis are winning by quite a way in your poll. Although my preferred option is coming in second...

TNL

 
At 5:52 pm , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have to agree - there is less reporting and more commentary. That is the sad and insidious truth about the 'news' these days.

That said I find the concepts of 'proportionate response' and 'losing face' laughable.

What is a proportionate response? Does it depend on the situation? Does it depend on your ability to respond? Does it depend on the perceptions, opinions and hindsight of others?

If someone breaks into your house and threatens you with a knife are you supposed to wave your hand and say "Have at it!"? Pick up the phone (presuming you will be allowed to do so) and call the police? Ask to go to the kitchen so you too can have a knife? Bah! You break out the shotgun and blow a great big hole in the intruder.

Turning the other cheek only encourages current and future actions. Calling the UN is worse than a joke. A tit for tat response is just plain counterproductive. So we have what we see today - overwhelming force. Will it work? Only if carried through to its ultimate conclusion: the complete destruction of Hamas.

Whose side am I on? I suppose I'm on the side of overwhelming force applied as a response and deterrent. I am not going to go out hunting criminals, but I have no intention of letting an intruder live.

As for losing face, well, if that is the justification for initiating hostilities, then overwhelming force is surely a proportionate response. Stupidity does have its rewards.

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home