A New Direction: Changing Conflict Resolution in the Middle East - A Three Act Proposal

Act I: Revisiting the Past

Certain patterns in the realm of terrorism and especially the response to terrorism have been emerging in the past decade, if not longer. I want to make clear that under no circumstances would I suggest a lack of response to typical terror attacks, or significant threats of violence, but I do want to take a critical look at the recent responses by powerful governments to the aggressions of smaller and often stateless religiously and socially motivated entities. Observably, the beliefs that large military showings do not, under any circumstances, discourage those who wish to seek antagonistic retribution or aggressions. A classic example of this initiative to overpower or appear to overpower an enemy and to dishearten and dismay their future plans, is the attempt of the ‘shock and awe’ campaign by the US at the beginning of the invasion of Iraq.

It is clear that the fervor of any ‘insurgents’ was not thwarted or crushed, in fact it is widely accepted that the large military presence in Iraq is exactly what brought these terrorists or insurgents to the area as a reaction to US aggression, not preceding it. So fundamentally, the campaign was meant to scare any would-be insurgents into submission, or at least suppress their will to fight, but alternatively it was a rallying cry, not just for anti-American militarists, but for thousands of Arabs and Muslims who believe in an autonomous state in Iraq, one free of Western control.

I am also not taking responsibility or claiming justification for militant Islamic fundamentalists who use violence to suppress others and force their will on the people, even when claiming the aggressions of others as their motivation. These groups are unquestionably responsible for their own violence and hostility, provoked or not, and are unjustified to coerce and terrorize in the name of peace. However, this behavior to some degree is learned, and we, more often than not, are the teacher. The recent attacks on Mumbai demonstrates my point; the regime responsible for the attacks, the Lashkar-e-Taiba, was trained by US special forces during the Russian conflict in Afghanistan during the mid to late 80’s.

Successfully equipped and trained to defeat the Soviets, groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba had little to do constructively after the conflict. The void of power created struggles and a need for tribal armies and other conflicts involving Muslim people also perpetuated the need for such groups. Seeing all Western influence as a hindrance to Muslim peoples, many militant groups took up arms against the entirety of the Western world. Often these perspectives were correct, US and European influence has scarcely been a long-term positive interaction in the Middle East. The training of Lashkar-e-Taiba is a classic example; we train the indigenous people to create conflict but not how to build a school or maintain infrastructure. Iraq has been a second illustration of this pattern. Even in the creation of Middle Eastern nations, after the devastation of World War I and II, the Western powers divided up the land as if it were a bounty of war; this is exactly how Iraq itself was formed.


Act II: Source of the Conflict

Enter into the equation Israel and their current war with Hamas and it is no wonder why the region is maintaining its status at a boiling point. My attempt at a brief historical context was meant to make this point: violence begets violence and one can no longer be used to justify the other. After creating many of the conditions in which the real victims, the citizens and common people of the land, suffer under the control of the only leaders capable of sustaining power, the US and allies shrug our shoulders at the motivations of such people. Our own naiveté toward our responsibility in causing strife and pushing militaries without pushing schools and hospitals is laughable.

Now Israel is struggling with very similar problems, but for them it is within its own borders. The Israeli people are certainly victims themselves. Rocket and mortar attacks by Hamas can in no way be tolerated. However, leveling the Palestinians infrastructure is hardly an effective response to this violence. In fact, responding to intolerable violence with intolerable violence is self-perpetuating. The Israeli military is attempting to bomb as accurately as they can and are targeting government (Hamas) and military targets, but a little info on the Gaza Strip is needed here.

A 360 square mile stretch of coastal land located between southern Israel and Egypt, this Palestinian territory has been under Israeli control since 1967 after invasion forced Egyptian forces out. It has a population of over 1.5 million, which means there are well over 10,000 people for every square mile, hardly optimal conditions for military air strikes, no matter how precise. Therefore civilian casualties are inevitable. So how do Israeli leaders expect that attacking these targets this way will lead to an end of violence? How can they expect the Palestinian people to choose peace when they themselves are making the opposite choice? The same can be said of Hamas, however their goals are different than the Israelis.

Hamas is no victim, they have conducted as much warfare as anyone involved and they have purposefully targeted civilians. So the problem is, how does Israel protect itself from attacks stemming from a group that has won the respect of its citizens by providing the services Israel had not, namely schools, hospitals and other services? This same group now hides among the people who elected them. Israel’s response is to pressure the Palestinians with military might into rejected Hamas and casting them out. But as we’ve already discussed, this bullying tactic has shown grossly ineffective. Instead of surrendering to pressure, the Palestinians will do what they have for decades now, and harden their resolve.


Act III: A New Hope

If Israelis wish to persuade the people of Palestine, they need to only look to those who have won their favor. By giving the people what they need, Israel can change the course of their contention in time. Providing a safe, and violence free environment for their rivals is the direction needed to reach what the Israeli people want for themselves.

This same general concept should undoubtedly be applied to most of the Western world and it’s contentions with Middle Eastern establishments. The needs of the people are creating the environment for militaristic regimes to maintain power. They supply minimal amounts of necessities for the populations and in return influence the political atmosphere and impose their own agendas. If we wish to create political change, then the source of basic needs of the people must first change. The days of fighting fire with fire has only left us burnt in the end, looking forward we need a new solution, a solution based on rational decision and a critical analysis of the past.