It is very interesting that there are so many responses to Derek Summerfield's valuable article, but I was saddened to see that nearly all the responses are simple political polemic, rather than an attempt to understand the conflict in a wider, psychological, sense.
While it should always be unacceptable in war to deliberately target civilians, this has occured with increasing frequency throughout history. Gone are the days of set-piece battles taking place between uniformed armies; we have long been into the phase of terror (defined as the deliberate targeting of civilians for political ends). Terror is committed by all sides in war. The moral high ground does not exist, though people on all sides claim it.
This is complicated in cases where one side does not have access to supplies of weaponry with which to conduct a 'fair' war against its opponent. In these cases wat is that side to do? The international rules of war do not account for such situations. If that side then decides to target the civilian population of its enemy then the moral case becomes complex. This is the case in Palestine.
We can and probably will argue forever about the rights and wrongs of Jews and Arabs in Palestine. An historical analysis suggests faults on all sides, though it is difficult from the perspective of Europe (and what Europe has learned from war, particularly the destruction wrought in WWI/WWII) not to sympathise with the Palestinian side. During the 20th Century they have been subjected to abuse from the Ottomans, the British and French (through the League of Nations), the Israelis' and the United Nations (through inaction). On the other hand, one must have sympathy for the plight of the Jewish people who survived the Holocaust and sought a new home. But as we know from Bosnia, it is not acceptable to move into someone else's home against the will of that person and expect them to accept it.
There is evidence regarding how someone subjected to child abuse is more likely to subject their own children to abuse. There is a case for arguing the same for Israel, that it was abused during WWII and now it is subjecting others within its sphere to similar abuse. This cycle is perpetuated when people on both sides are dehumanised through violence and terror.
How will this cycle of abuse end? Not while the younger generations on both sides are being taught to hate. Perhaps there would be hope if the United Nations was allowed to do its work effectively. We have examples where, even though there remains hatred, there is peace. Look at Bosnia post-Dayton.
On a note of optimism, there are many groups within Palestine/Israel, including medical practitioners, who are supporting a negotiated peace. Perhaps there cannot be peace until these groups help break the cycle. There is also a need for strong international action to separate the warring sides. The United Nations? A poor record. The United States? Not interested in peace, only in acquisition and control. Europe? Is this the only hope?
Rapid Response:
War and terror
It is very interesting that there are so many responses to Derek Summerfield's valuable article, but I was saddened to see that nearly all the responses are simple political polemic, rather than an attempt to understand the conflict in a wider, psychological, sense.
While it should always be unacceptable in war to deliberately target civilians, this has occured with increasing frequency throughout history. Gone are the days of set-piece battles taking place between uniformed armies; we have long been into the phase of terror (defined as the deliberate targeting of civilians for political ends). Terror is committed by all sides in war. The moral high ground does not exist, though people on all sides claim it.
This is complicated in cases where one side does not have access to supplies of weaponry with which to conduct a 'fair' war against its opponent. In these cases wat is that side to do? The international rules of war do not account for such situations. If that side then decides to target the civilian population of its enemy then the moral case becomes complex. This is the case in Palestine.
We can and probably will argue forever about the rights and wrongs of Jews and Arabs in Palestine. An historical analysis suggests faults on all sides, though it is difficult from the perspective of Europe (and what Europe has learned from war, particularly the destruction wrought in WWI/WWII) not to sympathise with the Palestinian side. During the 20th Century they have been subjected to abuse from the Ottomans, the British and French (through the League of Nations), the Israelis' and the United Nations (through inaction). On the other hand, one must have sympathy for the plight of the Jewish people who survived the Holocaust and sought a new home. But as we know from Bosnia, it is not acceptable to move into someone else's home against the will of that person and expect them to accept it.
There is evidence regarding how someone subjected to child abuse is more likely to subject their own children to abuse. There is a case for arguing the same for Israel, that it was abused during WWII and now it is subjecting others within its sphere to similar abuse. This cycle is perpetuated when people on both sides are dehumanised through violence and terror.
How will this cycle of abuse end? Not while the younger generations on both sides are being taught to hate. Perhaps there would be hope if the United Nations was allowed to do its work effectively. We have examples where, even though there remains hatred, there is peace. Look at Bosnia post-Dayton.
On a note of optimism, there are many groups within Palestine/Israel, including medical practitioners, who are supporting a negotiated peace. Perhaps there cannot be peace until these groups help break the cycle. There is also a need for strong international action to separate the warring sides. The United Nations? A poor record. The United States? Not interested in peace, only in acquisition and control. Europe? Is this the only hope?
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests