Israel and the rest of the Middle East have been fighting intermittently for decades. To be completely honest, I've never bothered to learn much about the conflict. For as long as I can remember, it's been a part of the news, either on the front page or lurking just beyond it. Over the past couple weeks, as tensions have again escalated into outright violence, I feel obligated to have an opinion, but am having trouble taking an educated stance.
My gut reaction is to blame Israel, because they seem kind of like the bully in this situation, invading with ground troops and slaughtering civilians. No matter the underlying factors, 600-some dead Palestinians stands in ridiculously unbalanced contrast to fewer than 10 dead Israeli soldiers. The humanitarian consequences of living in a war zone without utilities, ample food supplies, and access to medical facilities also concern me. But I also know that the more radical, militaristic members of Hamas deny Israel the right to exist, and strafe their cities with rocket fire. If Canada or Mexico frequently peppered the U.S. border with missiles, I would probably favor an immediate invasion as well.
I realize that the history of this conflict is much, much deeper than this, but the point is, I don't know what to think. Andrew Sullivan has done a good job covering various aspects of the debate. One posting that particularly caught my eye was this, in which a reader argues that it's tough to evaluate the actions of either side using the guidelines of just war because it's impossible to pass moral judgment until all consequences are known. In other words, only the hindsight of history will reveal what actions are justified by their success. It is the burden of policymakers to take their best shot.
Granted, this stance is, somewhat, a cop-out. But until I feel more informed about the situation, I'm happy to be able to claim humble uncertainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment