Let me try to clarify what I meant with an example from recent history. For generations, people said that there could never be peace in Northern Ireland, because neither side would blink. Then in the Good Friday Agreement, the Republic of Ireland officially recognized that Northern Ireland was part of the UK, even rewriting the Republic’s constitution. The Good Friday Agreement also required that the militias on both sides gave up their guns, and there were other sections regarding prisoner releases, guarantees of human rights, etc.
Once the agreement was made, it was thought that the voters of Ireland and Northern Ireland wouldn’t be able to put aside their centuries of anger, but both voted in favor of it overwhelmingly. It hasn’t gone completely smoothly, but even in the face of a few outbursts of violence the peace has now held for over 25 years.
It is going to take something similar for there to be a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine. Someone is going to have to take the first step, by doing something that previously seemed impossible. You nominated Hamas, which is fine, and it would be great if they would step up. And someone on the Palestinian side will need to be part of this process. But there will also need to be people willing to talk on the Israeli side too. Or the fighting can continue. It took about 400 years of fighting in Ireland to get to the Good Friday Accords. How many more centuries do the people of Israel want to live with backyard bomb shelters?
The reasoning [I am not speaking hypothetically; some people say this] is that it is better for the current government to continue than to collapse in the middle of the war, because the latter would signal internal weakness and lack of resolve and cohesion.
It follows that it is in the government’s interest to extend the war for months and years, and Netanyahu has said as much. On the other hand, I do not think his government was in danger of immediate collapse before the current war, and what has changed, really?
THE HAGUE/GAZA, Jan 26 (Reuters) - The World Court ordered Israel on Friday to prevent acts of genocide against Palestinians and do more to help civilians, although it stopped short of ordering a ceasefire as requested by the plaintiff South Africa.
…
The International Court of Justice (ICJ) found there was a case to be heard about whether Palestinian rights were being denied in a war it said was causing grievous humanitarian harm. It also called for Palestinian armed groups to release hostages captured in the Oct. 7 attacks on Israel that precipitated the conflict.
…
This [humanitarian crisis, especially to children], she said, justified the court’s decision to take emergency action to prevent irreparable harm. She also read out calls from Israeli officials for a harsh campaign, which she said justified the court’s order to Israel to punish people guilty of incitement.
If “both sides” are “supporters of Israel’s government” and “supporters of Hamas,” then sure. But if “both sides” are “people who think the killing should continue” and “people who think the killing should stop,” then only one side should be disappointed.
I appreciate that the IJC seems to be on the latter side.
Not attacking you or correcting you at all. Suggesting that the way a lot of people are thinking about the war limits folks into taking one or another side that supports violence, and that’s not the right framing.
Are you saying that South Africa is disappointed because the ruling didn’t call for a ceasefire? If so, yeah, that makes sense.
Yeah, that’s nothing in that ruling for Hamas. But South Africa got a partial win in that the world court said, “yep, there’s enough evidence of genocide to launch a full investigation, and hey, Israel, here are some things you need to change if you don’t want to be found guilty of genocide” and Israel got a partial win that the court found they have a right to pursue this war, and have no obligation to immediately cease fire.
All the same, I feel like we’re watching bad political theater, like in The Phantom Menace, trying to get the Senate to condemn the blockade (and invasion) of Naboo, and thinking… Seriously, how is it not obvious that this is wrong? Do we really need a years-long investigation into this before anyone can offer so much as a half-hearted Willy Wonka-esque “No, stop, please…”?
Anyway, here’s a line that I find helpful whenever one side is clearly perpetrating the majority of the mass-killing, but the other side is considered guilty by association with some another party:
We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented. Sometimes we must interfere.
The latest on the UNRWA scandal; intelligence indicates that as much as 10% of the agency’s employees are members of Hamas, multiple nations have cut their funding, and the agency is likely to run out of money soon.
Right - any entity that employs thousands in Gaza is going to employ some Hamas supporters and even members, whether they like it or not. I have little doubt that many, many Israeli companies employ Hamas supporters and members.