Who speaks up for the Palestinian people? The unending cycle of violence

How long can the international community stand by, watch on and witness one of the most one-sided conflicts in history?

Amidst the relentless cycle of violence and destruction that has gripped the Palestinian territories, the latest eruption of hostilities in the Gaza Strip has once again cast a grim shadow over the prospects for peace in the region. The conflict, though rooted in decades of historical animosities, has recently taken a turn for the worse, leaving both Palestinian and Israeli populations grappling with the consequences of a crisis that shows no signs of abating.

The predictability of this grim pattern is one of the most disheartening aspects of the ongoing conflict. As the latest round of hostilities escalates, observers have come to expect the same series of events to unfold. Israel, in response to perceived threats, launches harsh retaliatory measures, often involving airstrikes and military incursions into Gaza. These actions invariably result in the loss of innocent Palestinian lives, with civilians bearing the brunt of the violence. Meanwhile, the international community, represented by the United Nations and most Western governments, responds with strongly worded statements urging restraint while reaffirming Israel’s right to self-defence. The United States, in particular, usually offers its “thoughts and prayers” but substantive action remains elusive.

The consequences of this unending cycle are not limited to one side of the conflict but it’s obvious that’s one side which bears the brunt of the pain and suffering. While the Palestinian people endure unimaginable suffering and despair, Israel, in its quest for self-preservation, finds itself mired in actions that have been widely criticised as illegal and inhumane. The occupation of the West Bank, the construction of settlements, and the ongoing encroachments into Palestinian territories are all deemed violations of international law. Yet, despite global condemnations, these practices persist.

The narrative of “self-defence”, repeatedly invoked by Israel, has been stretched to its limits. How can the killing of over 8,000 civilians, mostly women and children, be an act of “self-defence”? The conflict has long ceased to be a matter of self-preservation, transforming into a multifaceted crisis that encompasses indiscriminate bombing, the targeting of hospitals, collective punishment, and what amounts to ethnic cleansing. The world watches, often unwilling to do anything, as these grave violations unfold.

In this unfolding tragedy, the glaring question remains: who speaks up for the Palestinian people? While criticism must also be directed towards Palestinian groups such as Hamas involved in the conflict, it is essential to recognise that they operate in a complex and deeply entrenched environment. The situation defies easy solutions and presents multifaceted challenges. Palestinian leaders and representatives are always asked to condemn the actions of Hamas, which they rightfully do. But why are Israeli leaders never asked to condemn the actions of the Israeli military? Why are they never asked to condemn the ethnic cleansing carried out by their own military? Their actions are likely to be identified as war crimes. Why are their actions never condemned in the Western media?

Within Israel, there exists a significant segment of the population that vehemently opposes these actions and yearns for a just and lasting resolution. Why do we never hear from the Israelis who strongly oppose this military action against Gaza?

The arrival of international troops and military support in the region from the United States, Australia, and other countries raises concerns about the effectiveness of external intervention in such a deeply rooted conflict. Will the deployment of troops yield tangible results or merely perpetuate the cycle of violence?

Ultimately, this crisis underscores that retaliations and counteractions will never arrive at a military or political solution. Civilians in Gaza are caught in a precarious and volatile situation, cut off from basic necessities like electricity, water, and food. It is a situation that demands an urgent and equitable resolution. The criticisms voiced here are not a judgment of entire citizenries but are aimed at the political organisations perpetuating this cycle of violence: the Israel military and Hamas.

As the crisis in Gaza continues to escalate, the world watches on, hoping that amidst the chaos and destruction, there might still be some hope for dialogue and a pathway forward, however unlikely that outcome might be.

Israeli Government’s confrontational stance in sparks outrage and international concern

As the crisis in Gaza continues to worsen, and as the conflict escalates, the Israeli government’s actions are coming under further scrutiny and the rhetoric emanating from the Israeli government has deepened concerns about the trajectory of the crisis. The government’s behaviour, resembles that of a rogue state, and its recent statement about “teaching the UN a lesson” has sparked outrage and unease.

It’s worth noting that such confrontational language, akin to what one might expect from leaders like Vladimir Putin, is hardly characteristic of Western democracies. In a stark departure from diplomatic norms, this statement came in response to a speech by the Secretary General of the United Nations, António Guterres, who voiced deep concern about the dire situation in the Middle East, particularly in Gaza. Guterres expressed worry over clear violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza and unequivocally emphasised that no party to an armed conflict is above international humanitarian law.

Guterres’s measured speech called for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire, emphasising the cessation of the collective punishment of the Palestinian people and the ongoing violence. His words were a plea for the international community to recognise the suffering of the Palestinian people, who have endured decades of occupation, territorial losses, economic stifling, displacement, and the destruction of their homes.

However, the Israeli military continues its relentless bombing campaign, resulting in over 8,000 innocent Palestinian casualties. The government’s subsequent declaration to “teach the UN a lesson” in the face of international criticism has only added fuel to an already incendiary situation. This confrontational stance is a matter of grave concern, especially when the world is witnessing the immense human cost of the conflict.

It is essential to clarify that criticism is directed at the Israeli government, its military, and hardline elements within the country, particularly those who draw inspiration from extremist religious doctrines. Just as Hamas does not represent all Palestinian people – there are other political entities in the Palestinian territories – the actions of the Israeli government and military do not reflect the perspectives of all Israeli citizens. There exists a significant portion of the Israeli population, as well as Jewish communities around the world, who are horrified by the Israeli government’s actions and seek a different path toward peace and stability.

The repercussions of this crisis extend far beyond the borders of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The continued violence and turmoil jeopardise the security and stability of the entire Middle East region. It’s a situation of immense complexity and depth, and despite the immense challenges, hope remains that the international community can help defuse the situation.

While world leaders, including President Joe Biden, have expressed criticism and concerns about the Israeli government’s actions, it is apparent that the situation may deteriorate before any semblance of improvement emerges. What is paramount is the hope that a resolution can be found that minimises harm to innocent victims and paves the way for a more peaceful and secure Middle East. The current crisis demands an immediate re-evaluation of strategies and a concerted effort to prevent further suffering on all sides.

Australian political figures treating a complex Israel–Palestine conflict as just another opportunity

As the conflict in Gaza rages on, it’s crucial to recognise the far-reaching implications and how they resonate even in countries far removed from the immediate theatre of conflict. The war may be centred around Gaza, but its political reverberations are being felt across the globe, including in Australia and recent statements and actions by Australian political figures underscore the complexity of the issue and the potential impact on domestic politics.

One such instance that drew significant attention was when the leader of the opposition, Peter Dutton, suggested that Prime Minister Anthony Albanese should visit Israel while en route to meet President Biden in the United States. It was unclear what the Prime Minister’s visit to Israel would achieve, but Dutton decided to push this agenda, cause trouble for the Labor government and create the perception that Albanese had failed to act – what he failed to act on wasn’t articulated by Dutton but given the state of Australia’s mainstream media, it never needs to be articulated: it creates news copy and a point of attack on the Albanese government.

Dutton’s opportunistic suggestion and the ensuing debate highlighted the delicate and nuanced nature of the Israel–Palestine conflict. It is a matter that defies easy solutions, and while passionate voices on both sides advocate for their perspectives, the complexity of the situation remains.

The government minister Ed Husic, spoke out on behalf of Palestine, emphasising the collective punishment faced by Palestinians and the obligation of governments, particularly the Israeli government, to adhere to international law. His words reflected a growing concern about the disproportionate use of force and the impact on innocent lives.

Senator Fatima Payman also made a passionate speech in the Senate, condemning the killing of innocent civilians on both sides and calling for an immediate ceasefire. Her remarks highlighted the need for the international community to take a clear stand and push for a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

All these comments add to the plurality of debate in a diverse Australian community – and who doesn’t want a hostile war to end for the sake of all sides – but for the modern Liberal Party, every issue presents as a political opportunity to attack the Labor government, irrespective of how delicate an international issue might be.

The Deputy Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley, sought to focus on the points of difference and announced as loudly as possible that the Labor government was “divided” over Palestine and the entire party was fracturing over the issue. And, of course, the media duly responded where an interview with a hyperbolic Ley on the friendly outlet of Sky News, became magnified and amplified: who’s got time for nuance when we can listen to the words of Sussan Ley, which were uttered purely for political reasons? Labor is divided, obviously: Sussan Ley said so and, therefore, it must be true.

The question of sending the Australian Prime Minister to the Middle East raises an important consideration. While diplomatic efforts are essential, it’s uncertain how such a visit would contribute to resolving the deeply entrenched conflict. Following Dutton’s foolish suggestion, should the leaders of every country now visit Israel?

As the crisis evolves, the priority should remain on diplomatic solutions, as sending troops might escalate the situation further. However, the realities of international relations and the complexities of the conflict often mean that wishes and moral considerations take a backseat to political and strategic priorities.

While the Israel–Palestine conflict remains a highly intricate and emotionally charged issue with significant global implications, how long can the international community stand by, watch on and witness one of the most one-sided conflicts in history?

What is the tipping point for the international community when it decides that enough is enough? Is it 10,000 civilian deaths in Gaza? Is it 20,000? Twelve of Gaza’s 35 hospitals cannot be used because of damage from bombing or lack of fuel and electricity. Will the international community act when the last remaining hospital switches off its lights? At least 221 schools and 180,000 dwellings have been damaged and destroyed over the past three weeks. Is 500 schools the tipping point? Or 500,000 dwellings destroyed?

While Australia, like many other countries, grapples with how to respond and engage with this crisis, the primary goal should be a resolution that minimises the suffering of innocent civilians on both sides. But the current destruction of Gaza cannot continue. The political discourse surrounding the conflict requires careful consideration and a commitment to engaging in constructive dialogue that paves the way for a just and lasting solution. At the moment, that seems a long way off.