One of the pressing questions currently being posed by both the public and the media in the Western world pertains to how Israel should respond to the recent terrorist attack by Hamas in a way that can both curtail the security threats it faces and mitigate the civilian casualties in Gaza.
On the popular show hosted by British journalist Piers Morgan, a recurring query he directs towards his guests is, "What constitutes a proportionate response from Israel?" Responses to this query tend to diverge based on whether the guests hold pro-Palestine or pro-Israel perspectives.
Pro-Palestine individuals argue that there is no justification for Israel targeting civilians, even in the wake of the devastating October 7 incident. They maintain that Israel should not inflict punishment on an entire population for the actions of Hamas.
Conversely, pro-Israel advocates contend that, while civilian casualties are regrettable, Israel has a fundamental right to protect itself from Hamas at any cost.
These opposing viewpoints are deeply entrenched and appear irreconcilable, reflecting two distinct world views: one anchored in principles of justice and morality, and the other in considerations of power and realism.
The former group, to which I and many people around the world belong, maintains a humanitarian perspective that rejects oppression and cruelty under any circumstances. Conversely, the latter group tends to view international politics and inter-country relationships as an arena for power accumulation and a hardline approach, often without placing a significant emphasis on moral principles.
This divide reflects the classic distinction between idealism and realism in international relations or the liberal-left and conservative-right ideologies in politics.
In today’s political discourse, it is increasingly common to observe a pattern where two opposing ends of the ideological spectrum present their arguments and evidence without fully comprehending or respecting each other’s viewpoints. This situation can be likened to two parallel lines that, by their nature, will never intersect, and this lack of convergence is by no means surprising. How can we expect individuals with no shared rational or moral foundation to find common ground?
One group’s mindset is firmly anchored in humanitarian values and a pursuit of justice, while the other appears to prioritise practicality and tends to perceive politics as inherently harsh and unjust.
To break free from this cycle, it is crucial to seek long-term solutions by focusing on the concept of "strategic interests". The reason for this approach is that "strategic interest" is a notion that can be embraced by both sides, albeit for different reasons, thereby providing a potential bridge for dialogue and co-operation.
Rather than fixating on isolated issues such as how Israel should respond to October 7, it is imperative that we pose broader questions about the roles and responsibilities of Israelis and Palestinians in resolving this 75-year conflict.
In a situation where numerous immediate and historical complexities are interwoven, isolating one or two specific matters for resolution is an insufficient approach. Concentrating on smaller details can lead us to lose sight of the bigger picture and the opportunity for a comprehensive resolution.
The perplexing dilemma of Palestine can be effectively addressed only by examining it within its broader historical and geopolitical context.
When we do so, what appears to be a complex issue transforms into a more straightforward matter with a solution that serves the national interests of both sides.
It is widely recognised that the primary strategic interest for the state of Israel, distinct from its leaders who may be inclined towards conflict, lies in achieving lasting peace that ensures the security of its citizens.
Furthermore, it is evident that Israel’s iron-fist strategy over the past 75 years has not succeeded in mitigating threats. Israel has consistently lived in a state of national emergency since its establishment in 1948, denying its citizens the opportunity for a normal life. Therefore, the most viable path to peace and security for Israel lies in creating a peaceful and secure environment for Palestinians.
In response to Morgan’s inquiry about how Israel can eliminate the threat posed by Ha, Bassam Youssef, an Egyptian heart surgeon and comedian, offered a straightforward response: "By giving Palestinians what they deserve." The answer to the question is clear, and the solution to the conflict is within reach. The only obstacle is the lack of "will" and "determination" to resolve the problem.
It is an inherent aspect of human nature that, when in a position of power, one may resist compromise.
Nevertheless, history has repeatedly demonstrated that, in the long term, it is peace rather than power that plays the central role in ensuring security.
— Dr Forough Amin is the founder of Iranian Women In NZ.
