Ceasefire to Reconciliation

I am encouraged by the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Palestine last night. It is admirable that both parties agreed and seem to be adhering. However, without a doubt there will be aggression from Hamas factions at some point and there will be many reasons, some honourable and some shameful, for Israel to retaliate.

Obama promised to invest further in Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ defence system. Wrong answer Barack! You don’t fight this seemingly unfathomable hate with military might. ANY kid could see that and it is time for all interested parties to recognise this.

The only way to swim against the flow of unforgiveness, retaliation and misunderstanding is to invest extravagantly in facilitating reconciliation.

Surely the place to pump resources is in the next generation of Israelis and Palestinians. Programmes should be facilitated that enable children on both sides to grow up with an understanding of and affection for their neighbour. Mixed summer camps, visits across the borders etc. so the next generation have genuine friendships with one another.

At some point this ceasefire will fail. There will be more rockets and power games in coming years. But in 20 years time can there be peace? I believe so, but only if the 20-40 year olds in 20 years time know the bigger picture and know their human brothers and sisters across the border.


2 thoughts on “Ceasefire to Reconciliation

  1. I like this post!

    But I do think there is a legitmate reason to invest in Iron Dome – Israel’s aggression toward the Palestinians is via it’s defence force, a state body, an army – one that is (or generally should be) under state control and whereby there can be reasonable expectation that, where a ceasefire exists, soldiers will obey orders. The Palestinian aggression comes from various sources but the rocket launches from Hamas are not from soldiers in an army, under orders and within a unified authority structure, and so it is less reasonable to expect that Mr Militant with a rocket will choose and continue to choose not to fire said rocket at innocents. Therefore, a defence mechanism put in place by the state controlled militants to defend against the less co-ordinated militants is reasonable, for the life and safety of thousands not in the military.

    All the above is of course assuming that the attacks on Israel have not been state-sponsored, a choice I continue to choose to make as the alternative is just too scary for words.

    And my para 2 does force me to take into account that Israeli aggression is state-sponsored and borders on terrorism where attacks are not targeted at military targets.

    can’t help but think it would be better all round for the palestinian state to be supported financially in order to develop the state apparatus that the rest of us take for granted, and future conflict could more closely resemble a war between military forces rather than ‘terrorist attacks’ or ‘military aggression’.

  2. Yes, I’m not against the technology to intercept rogue rockets, or even state sponsored rockets, but we always manage to invest overproportionally in the military when other investments would be so much more worth while.

    That’s a good point about ‘state apparatus’. There’s enough shortfallings in our Governments and they are well funded, well resourced with great infrastructure. How they manage to vaguely run anything in Gaza is incredible.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s